Hearings to examine S.462

Uh, call this hearing to order. Good morning and welcome all of you to the hearing today. Appreciate all of you making the trip to be with us. We have a number of bills on today's agenda, uh priorities across the west. This morning's hearing will look at many pieces of legislation that impact our federal lands. Families and communities in Wyoming and throughout the west depend on federal lands for energy and mineral development, for grazing, for forest management, and for recreation. Included in the agenda is a bill of my own that's important to those who graze on federal lands. Um, I would like to take a moment to highlight the importance of this legislation, S twenty-seven eighty-seven, the Grassland Grazing Act. Livestock grazing on federal lands has a strong tradition in Wyoming and across the West. Federal grazing is a necessary tool for wildfire prevention and for promoting range land health. It's widely used by both the U S Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The U S Forest Service manages both national forest and national grasslands. Livestock grazing is done on both national forest land and grasslands. Obtaining a federal permit for grazing on national forest land is common practice. However, there is a lack of federal certainty and clarity for obtaining the same permits for grasslands. In Wyoming, cattle graze on the Thunder Basin national grassland. Located in northeastern Wyoming in the Powder River Basin between the Bighorn Mountains and Black Hills. It uh encompasses little over half a million acres. That's a lot of land. My bill helps bring regulatory clarity for grazing permits from the U S Forest Service. Ranchers across the west depend on access to grazing on our national grasslands. They deserve to have certainty that their grazing permits will be approved in a timely manner. The Grasslands Grazing Act will give Wyoming's ranching families the stability that they need to keep their operations running strong. And I'd like to welcome all four of our witnesses here this morning, especially Ty Cheketts, who is, uh, always wonderful to have him here. Uh, he's he's one of the wonderful Wyoming ranchers who's been back to D. C. to testify, speaking on behalf of the important work that they do each and every day on their operations. I look forward to hearing your testimony and from all of you. Uh, but first I'd like to turn to Senator Cortes Masto for opening remarks.

Thank you, thank you, um, Chairman Barrasso. Also want to thank our uh uh chair and ranking members, Lee and Heinrich, uh for this legislative hearing today. Uh, today is the second legislative hearing held by this subcommittee, and uh I look forward to working with my colleagues on planning several more this year. We have a full agenda, if you've, as you've heard there's twenty-three bills. Several s- today's bills were previously processed through the committee last Congress. And I look forward to working with my colleagues to for advance them further. I also want to welcome all the panelists today. It's great to see everybody from John Raby to Christopher French. Um, Mister uh Cheket's welcome again, and also to uh wonderful Julie Regan. Uh, I appreciate Julie's come all the way over from um, Tahoe. She is the Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. She'll be providing testimony specifically in support of S three six nine five, which is the Santini Martin. Modernization Act. Thank you so much. Um, and I I, too, wanna talk about some of the bills that I have on the agenda today. I so appreciate um, there're several of my bills. One of them is S thirteen forty nine, which is the Ruby Mountains Protection Act. This bill, which has already been favorably approved by this committee in each of the previous three congresses let me say that again three congresses would prohibit oil and gas development within the Ruby Mountains area of the Humboldt-Toyabe National Forest. which is located in Elko and White Pine counties in Nevada. The bill was created after the Forest Service received a request by an out of state member of the public to develop fifty-four thousand acres of land within the Ruby Mountains. In twenty nineteen the Forest Service determined the area was not appropriate for leasing due to the potential f- due due to the low potential for oil and gas resources and due to the extensive involvement of the community in opposition to leasing efforts. This bill codifies the determination that was made by the Forest Service under the first Trump administration ensuring this great public space is preserved for its recreational opportunities outdoor economy rare wildlife and plant life and the local culture that these mountain um support. The other bill is S nineteen eighty-one, strategic grazing to reduce risk of wildlife act. This bill would direct the Interior Department and the Forest Service to work with grazing permit holders to create a strategy to utilize livestock grazing on public lands to mitigate risks posed by wildfires. In states where most of the land is managed by the federal government, like my home state of Nevada, ranchers and cattlemen rely on public lands for grazing purposes. Now more than ever, due to climate change and historic drought conditions, these lands and the populated areas uh near them are threatened by wildfires that grow in size and intensity almost yearly. And then, um, I would also like to talk about S three six nine five, which is the Santini-Burton Modernization Act. This bill is bipartisan, bicameral, and by-state. It has wide local support from the Washoe tribe of Nevada and California, local government, and the business community from both sides of Lake Tahoe, California and Nevada. Has the full support from our Tahoe delegation in the Senate, cosponsored by my colleagues Senators Rosen, Padilla, and Schiff, and my co-lead in the House is Congressman Kevin Kiley from California. This bill modernizes the original Santini-Burton Act of nineteen eighty, that utilized revenues from targeted land disposal in Clark County and southern Nevada to preserve Lake Tahoe from growing threats of environmental degradation from rapid development through land acquisition and land management on both Nevada and California sides of the lake. Changes were made to the law in nineteen ninety-eight that limited the use of funds granted by the act by the land sales. However, preserving the pristine pristine quality of Lake Tahoe requires us everlasting vigilance and ability to adapt to evolving practices. Uh, modernizing the Santini-Burton Burton Act would allow Tahoe partners with additional tools to manage public lands and address visitation impacts. Um, the goal here, and I'm hoping working with our colleagues, we can continue the original intent uh of the uh Santini-Burton Act. Um, I I just wanna mention two other bills on today's agenda that I am also appreciative, are um, and they're very important to my home state, uh, and they are, um, uh, sponsored by colleague, uh, Senator Rosen. That's S four six two, the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act, and S three four nine three, the Carson City Public Land Correction Act. Both of these bills, like the Southern Nevada Lands bill, uh, received a hearing in December, were favorably reported by the committee, with bipartisan support last Congress, are community driven, they prioritize locally identified needs, including specific land disposals to facilitate local economic development and residential housing needs, conveyances to facilitate efficient municipal management or support for local tribal communities, and efforts to preserve certain public lands for conservation and outdoor recreation. Uh, I look forward to the hearing today, and thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thanks so much, uh, Senator Cortes-Masch.

Jim Brasso, Ranking Member, Cortez Masto, thank you. Um, included in today's agenda is one of my bills, the Montana Sportsman Conservation Act. Um, our family roots in Montana go back five generations. My wife and I spend as much time outdoors as we can, uh, throughout wilderness areas in Montana as well as our national forests. Montanians are clear about the importance of public lands and count me in as one who believes strongly in that. Local input and the best available science guide land management plan revisions, but unfortunately congressional inaction has left many areas in Montana in limbo. The original intent of wilderness study areas was for land management agencies to study and they then make recommendations to Congress whether an area is suitable and should be made wilderness or should be released to general management and not suitable for wilderness. There is so much misinformation and frankly lying going on in this issue, but I want to set the record very, very straight. Congress then must act on these recommendations. Montanans are tired of going through the process of studying, providing input on these areas, and then not seeing any action or resolution. The consequence of this inaction is unacceptable, and I am determined to fix it. Following a multi-year collaborative process with strong public comment, spanning multiple administrations, the three areas in my bill, covering just over one hundred thousand acres, have been deemed unsuitable for permanent wilderness. Let me say that again. Multiple collaboration over multiple administrations have been deemed unsuitable for wilderness designation. These are the Hoodoo Mountain, Wales Creek, and the Middle Fork Judith Wilderness Study areas. The bill is supported by both the Powell and Judith Basin County commissions, as well as multiple outdoor recreation, timber, and ag groups. I ask unanimous consent to add the eight letters of support I have received into the record.

Without objection.

I'd also like to note that if this bill would be enacted, the lands included in it, as well as the forest system as a whole, will continue to enjoy statutory protection from NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, CERCLA, FLIPMA, and multiple other conservation and land management statutes and policies. I hope that sets the record straight, because there's a lot of misinformation about this issue. The Forest Service, with public input, also develops forest management plans and travel analysis reports. The Montana Sportsman Conservation Act does not strip protections, but instead improves the ability to restore wildlife habitats, enhance sportsman opportunities, mitigate wildfire risk, and increase multiple use opportunities for Montanans. Montanans have waited too long for Congress to act on these three WSAs. It's time to listen to the science, listen to those on the ground, respect the collaborative process with massive amounts of public input, and return these areas to general management with multiple conservation protections remaining in place, as I mentioned earlier. I want to thank our witnesses for their attendance in today's hearing. I look forward to your testimony.

Thank you, Senator Dain. Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman, and I I want to thank both you and ranking member Cortes Masto for convening this subcommittee hearing today. Uh, this hearing will add to the significant number of conservation bills ready for mark-up And I look forward to working both with you and Chairman Lee to get them marked up, passed, and - and frankly signed into law, most importantly. Uh, I'd like to highlight two of the bills that I have on the agenda that are widely supported in New Mexico uh the first bill would implement a mineral withdrawal for four small parcels in the Placitas area just north of Albuquerque uh the threat of a gravel mine in the area and the particulate pollution that comes with it um brought the community together to seek permanent protection for these parcels. Uh the largest area is uh commonly known as the Buffalo Tract, uh is valued for hiking, outdoor recreation, but also serves as an important uh wildlife corridor between the Sandia Mountains to the south and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the north. Uh these parcels are adjacent to a neighborhood and a community um There are, there's literally, uh, several gravel mines only a few miles from the Buffalo Tract that are not controversial in this community, because they're in an appropriate location. Uh, further, the lands in this withdrawal proposal are culturally and ecologically significant to two, um, two Pueblos, two Native American tribes in New Mexico who support this effort. And for these reasons, it is appropriate an appropriate uh an inappropriate location for gravel mining. This has been literally a decade-long effort and I appreciate the support that the community as a whole has provided for this bill in past congresses from the local muni- municipality to the county to the local tribes. Um the neighborhood association it goes on and on because this is not a controversial bill in my state. Um My second bill would establish the Cerro de la Hoya wilderness within the Rio Grande National Forest or within the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument. And this parcel encompasses Cerro de la Hoya, which is a towering shield volcano over the Taos pla- plateau, where the people of Taos have hunted, gathered herbs, collected firewoods for - for literally generations. The high elevation of Cerro de la Hoya offers solitude, and unparalleled views, while the surrounding landscape of the monument offers recreational opportunities, including whitewater rafting, fishing, hiking, and camping. Designated this wilderness, uh, will ensure that all of all of the above values are preserved so that future generations can experience them. In addition, this bill would, um, make some minor adjustments to the boundaries of the Rio Grande uh, del Norte National Monument, to include recent land and water conservation acquisitions adjacent to the monument. Uh, the acquisitions will allow new public access to the monument and increase opportunities for both recreation and traditional uses. But most importantly, we are further protecting these acquisitions from commercial development in an area that is renowned in New Mexico for its view view shed. LWCF acquisitions such as these are great examples of a community coming together to build economic development opportunities, to unlock access for um pristine hunting opportunities, hiking, recreation opportunities, and provide an opportunity for um protecting fragile and valuable landscapes. This bill is a major priority for the Taos community, including both the county, the Pueblo of Taos, the city, and I'm proud to be able to offer this bill for consideration today. Uh, both of these bills had y- have had literally years of support and been processed by this committee in uh past congresses with bipartisan support. Understanding that the uh the chairman and I may uh the chairman of the overall committee and I may differ in opinion about this type conservation legislation. I hope that we will be able to um have these bills considered and advanced on a mark-up shortlist soon. And once again I want to thank you, Chairman Brasso, and the Ranking Member for h- having this hearing today.

Thank you, Senator Heinrich. We're gonna turn to the panel now and uh it's an honor to introduce Mr. Ty Cheketts this morning. Welcome to the committee. He is President of the Association of National Grasslands. He's a Wyoming native from New Castle, Wyoming. Uh, his wonderful wife Becky is here. She's joined us as well. Thank you, Becky, for being here this morning. Good to have both of you here. Ty Ranch is on his family operation. Uh, they run a thousand head of black Angus on about sixty-five thousand acres of both public and private land. He's a member of the W- Wyoming Stock Growers Association. He also holds a seat on the board of the Public Lands Council and is a member of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Uh, Ty, I'm very grateful that you're here today. I want to thank you for representing the ranchers across the United States. I also want to take a moment to thank the other witnesses for joining us this morning, especially Nevada State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Mister John Rabea, and Associate Chief of the United States Forest Service, uh, within the US Department of Agriculture, Mister Chris French, who is a friend and regular witness to the c- committee. Thank you both for coming here again. Also like to welcome Miss Julie, uh, Regan, who is the Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. And I look forward to hearing everyone's testimony this morning. Mister Chekits.

Good morning, Chairman Brassel, ranking members, Cortez Mastel, and other members of the committee. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be here to testify on Senate Bill twenty seven, eighty seven, the Grasslands Grazing Act of twenty twenty five. Background, I, my name is Ty Chekits. I'm President of the Association of National Grasslands. Also serve uh as a board member on the Public Lands Council, a member of the Wyoming Stock Growers, and also NCBA, like the Senator said. Most importantly though, I'm a husband and a father. Our operation is on the Thunder Basin National Grassland. My family and I own and operate the historic Fiddleback Ranch. We run on sixty-five thousand acres. We run a thousand cows. Without our permits, it would be impossible for us to ranch on this scale. A and G represents thirty national grasslands, grazing associations and districts. There's twelve hundred and seventy-five members. There's a million AUMs, four million acres on the national grasslands across the west. We work directly with our Forest Service friends to manage and improve these lands for long-term sustainability. Grazing on federal lands is diverse. but the law's government shouldn't create winners and losers. National grassland permittees have fewer rights than our friends on the BLM and national forest lands. This inequity stems from Flitman's final language in nineteen seventy-six. Originally included in the national grassland permittees but was later removed in committee, leaving them without the due process protections under forty-three USC, seventeen fifty-two. As a result, US Forest Service created two classes of permits, thirty-six CFR two two two point three, forest service permittees have more rights, national grassland permittees have fewer rights. It requires a simple change in language. Lands within national forest with national forest system lands. What this means for us as producers, gives us ten year permits. Priority for renewal, the preference system. Written notice and opportunity to correct these issues before suspension or cancellation. Two year notice before cancellation except in emergency. These are basic due process protections that BLM and Forest Service permittees currently enjoy. This si- bill simply puts national grasslands on equal standing. Long-term permits equals long-term stewardship. Allows us as ranchers to develop water, maintain fences, soil forage improvements. Gives us financial stability. A ten year permit gives our lenders the confidence to borrow us the money we need to operate. Producers can plan, invest, and stay on the land. The average age of a rancher is nearly sixty years old. Over the next twenty years, seventy percent of ranch land will change hands. Young producers need predictability, sustainability to stay in the business. Since twenty seventeen, the US has lost seventeen percent of cattle ranches, more than a hundred and fifty thousand operations. The national herd is at a seventy-five year low. Meanwhile, beef demand is up over nine percent from on the past decade. We can't afford to lose more ranchers and ranchers can't afford to lose more AUMs. The USDA's own plan calls for no net loss of AUMs. Sixty percent of the western beef herd grazes on federal lands. Fifty percent of the nation's breeding ewes do as well. Department of Interior estimates one and a half billion in direct economic impact and eight point five billion annual in ecosystem services. National grasslands are some of the highest quality of forage available. When you can plan, you can manage better, and the land benefits. Grasslands cover twenty-five percent of the air surface and they store thirty-four percent of the global carbon. Grazing supports native grasses, which are so important to our ecosystem, reduces invasive species such as cheatgrass, lowers wildfire risk that destroys communities and costs millions, supports biodiversity and our wildlife. The changes this legislation addresses only extend to seventeen fifty-two, Due process rights, not all of FLIPMA. Conservation practice program stays intact. Pry exemptions remain intact. Grazing associations keep their current structure. Mister Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the subcommittee, Se- Senate Bill twenty-seven eighty-seven is a simple fix with enormous impact. It creates uniform, equitable, and predictable framework for ranchers who rely on the national grasslands. It helps ensure the long-term viability of rural communities, rangelands, and America's food supply, and ultimately, our national security. Thank you for your time. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thanks so much for being here, Mr. Rabe.

Chairman Brasso, Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify, to provide testimony on the bills on the hearing agenda related to the Bureau of Land Management. My name is John Rabe, and I'm the State Director for the Bureau of Land Management in Nevada. an agency I've had the pleasure to work for for over thirty years. The BLM manages approximately two hundred and forty-five million surface acres, located primarily in twelve western states and approximately seven hundred million acres of subsurface mineral estate. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLITMA, sets forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that public lands generally be managed for a broad range of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, timber production, hunting and fishing, and recreation. FLPM also requires BLM to manage public land resources on a sustained yield basis for the benefit of current and future generations. Under the Trump administration, the BLM is managing the nation's public lands as national assets, capable of growing our economy, helping balance the budget, and generating revenue for American taxpayers. These assets benefit all Americans. The BLM is working to fulfill the President's vision while protecting our beautiful lands and ensuring that America's public lands serve the American people. Many of the bills on the today's agenda further the Trump administration's goals and priorities particularly those related to mineral development, fire management, recreation and access, and supporting local communities. The administration is committed to unleashing American energy as part of the broader agenda of strengthening the economy, and lowering the cost of living, and the BLM is working to secure a reliable and resilient domestic supply of minerals. BLM supports H R three eight seven two, as it would expand the federal lands available for hard rock mineral development. This aligns with President Trump's direction to take immediate action to facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum practical extent. Wildfires threaten lives and livelihoods and cost our nation hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The current administration is focused on streamlining organizational structures and regulations including those needed to address today's wildfire crisis. The BLM welcomes the subcommittee's and hazardous fuels reduction and supports S one nine eight one and H R two zero four. Secretary Burgum re- recently reaffirmed the department's commitment to expanding public access to the land and waters it manages by issuing secretary's order three four four seven expanding hunting and fishing access removing unnecessary barriers and ensuring consistency across the department of interior lands and waters which among other things directs agencies to expand access, and opportunities where compatible with law safety and conservation needs. Under Secretary Burgum's leadership, the BLM is taking concrete steps to implement expand and expand access to individuals with disabilities. The BLM supports S two nine two eight's objective of preserving accessibility and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities for Americans with disabilities, and recognizes the importance of ensuring access to public lands in a manner that is safe predictable and consistent with applicable law. We welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the subcommittee on the bill. S three five two seven furthers the administration's recreation, timber production, and energy dominance goals while providing greater flexibility to manage and balance multiple uses and the BLM supports the bill. Several bills on the agenda propose management designations that would restrict motorized vehicle use, decrease public access, prohibit mineral development, and limit the ability of BLM to adequately manage and protect the lands in response to changing conditions, including the growing risk of wildfire and changing public needs. The BLM does not support the special designations, mineral withdrawals, and other restrictions imposed in S four six two, S one four six four, and S one four nine seven. The BLM recognizes the challenges presented by irregular land ownership patterns, and believes that land conveyances are an important tool to ensure management strategies are effective and in the public interest. As such, the BLM supports the land conveyance proposed in S two five five four, S three four nine three and hr nine five two finally the blm has no objection to hr three nine three seven and looks forward to working with the subcommittee and the sponsor to insure the review directed by the bill includes all relevant agencies and mineral materials thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important bills and i look forward to your questions

thanks very much mr. french

good morning thanks uh thank you chairman borrasso and rank ranking member uh cortez Masto It's uh, and other members of the subcommittee. It's my pleasure to be here today. Um, today I'll present the views of the US Department of Agriculture on sixteen bills uh, that pertain to the US Forest Service. Um, I'm Chris French, I'm the Associate Chief of the US Forest Service. And, in the wide-ranging nature of the bills we're discussing today, I think that when you look at all of them it really demonstrates the breadth of the work we do at the USDA Forest Service. The American people use national forests and grasslands, for essential activities that support economies, ways of life, and American prosperity. Ranchers, loggers, miners, recreationists, among others rely on accessing these lands for their families, businesses, livestock grazing, timber harvesting, hunting and fishing, recreation, and mineral and energy development, all of which we'll be discussing today in these bills. While the work we do on behalf of the American taxpayer is largely focused on delivering services locally, we recognize that management of our lands has broader regional and national impacts. So I hope that today's discussion showcases the many ways in which national forests and grasslands provide benefit and opportunity to the entire country. While our positions vary across the bills, our testimony expresses our willingness to sit down and work with bill sponsors and s- and the subcommittee on the ideas they've put forward. As always, I defer to the Department of Interior for its views on the elements of these bills that would impact lands. under its jurisdiction. Many of the bills included in today's hearing align with the Forest Service's commitment to ensuring the national forest system lands are accessible and productive to the American people. S two nine six A prioritizes updates to the Forest Service travel management and motor vehicle use plans in order to facilitate access to a variety of recreation opportunities for all Americans. H R three eight seven two expands opportunities for hard rock mineral leasing S two seven eight seven and S t one nine eight one promote grazing on national forests and grasslands, ensuring a streamlined implementation of permitting and the use of grazing as a strategic wildfire risk reduction tool. We support the goal of all these bills, and we hope to work further with the bill sponsors on any technical adjustments. H R two O four supports the agency's ongoing efforts to build trust with the American public around the work we do and in this case, our efforts to reduce wildfire risk. We support this bill and would like to work with the sponsor to ensure the bill's reporting requirements fully capture wildland fire risk to communities, the scope and effectiveness of our treatment efforts, and the associated costs, the American people. The remaining eleven bills under discussion today direct land-based changes in specific geographies. Across these bills, the Forest Service is committed to working with communities, tribes, and other local entities to resolve issues related to land uses. The agency is similarly committed to working with you, Congress, to ensure that the bill's text achieves the - your intent. Across these bills we do not support actions that lim- limit our management flexibility, or conflict with executive orders and other administration policies. To this end, the administration does not support further mineral withdrawals from the federal estate and or additional wilderness or wild While our written testimony details some local concerns in general, we support land conveyances, transfers, and disposals that make sense for our communities. In my experience, the legislative language directing these actions can often directly affect the agency timelines to complete them. And we want to make sure that we're responsive and we meet your expected time frames established through the bills. So for that reason we hope to work with you to ensure that the bill language directing these actions facilitate prompt execution through the use of consistent language that streamlines our process requirements, reduces burden on agency resources, and effectively achieves the congressional intent. That concludes my testimony. I look forward to your questions and the opportunity to testify here today.

Th- thanks so very much. Ms. Regan.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Cortes-Masto, and members of the subcommittee. As I am, uh, Julie Regan, the Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, I am prepared for S, uh, three six nine five, so I will cede my time to the others until that is called further in the program. Thank you.

Would you? OK. Good. Um, Senator Heidsmith, would you like to talk about your bill before we go to the questions?

I would. Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for these witnesses for willing to do what you're doing and, uh, all the services that you provide, but for your uh definitely your dedication. It's much appreciated. And I do appreciate the uh opportunity to speak on the American Shores Protection Act of twenty twenty five that would codify the twenty twenty memorandum that placed a moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the eastern Gulf of America. The moratorium still remains in effect today. And, uh, the bill comes as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management continues to advance the draft proposed program for the eleventh National Outer Continental Shell, Oil and Gas Leasing program. The proposal fulfills BOEM's statutory responsibility and it aligns with President Trump's executive order unleashing American energy, what I have been so anxious to do. The proposal considers all potential options and federal waters that could benefit the American people. Expanding opportunities in the Gulf could help meet growing energy demand, create jobs, and support refiners along the Gulf Coast. Additionally, sales will help fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, benefiting States across the country, not just Mississippi. Congress should allow the, uh, Boehme's process to proceed without restricting the administration's authority. Thank you again, Mister Chairman, I hope Congress continues exploring policies that strengthen American energy production on behalf of all Americans and again, thank you guys for being here.

Uh, thank you, Senator Heisman. Uh, Senator Murkowski, would you like to make an opening statement or would you prefer that we proceed to the questioning which is up to you your choice.

Let's go ahead and and proceed with the questioning, please.

Alright, thank you. Uh, Mister Trekis, if we could talk about some of the things you mentioned in your testimony. You know, almost half of the land in Wyoming is owned by the federal government. In most of our states, the federal government is the number one landlord for for all of us here.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, they're public places that people from Wyoming depend on for accessing their livelihoods. Congress directed grazing, timber harvesting, recreation to occur on these federal lands. National grasslands fall under a different authority and therefore, there is no certainty when it comes to grazing permittees and the certainty that you talked about in your testimony. So, can you please describe the importance of certainty for you and other permittees on the national grasslands?

Senator Brasso, it's so important that this bill passes. Let me explain. Currently, our grazing agreements can be canceled within thirty days, thirty day notice. Imagine running a business where all you have is a thirty day guarantee. Many ranchers such as myself have debts. Many ranchers have obligations. We all have families to feed and cows to take care of. Think about the local economies, the schools, the hardware stores, the dealerships. Our local economies req- require ranching. We have to have ranching to support our rural way of life. It's the backbone of America. Some of the finest people I know are those who work every day out there taking care of our lands to make them better for generations to come.

In a second I'm gonna ask you what you actually have to go through each time a permit, uh, comes up for renewal because national grasslands and national forests fall under jurisdiction of the Forest Service. They're not required to renew permits or allow grazing on the national grasslands. So tell me what you have to go through.

Thank you, Senator. I tell you, I'm gonna tell you a personal story. And, uh, twenty twenty-two when with the Thunder Basin Grazing Association went to renew our permits, there was a a disagreement between our friends with the Forest Service. And we were simply told that if we did not sign, that we would be trespassing. So we signed under duress. And I tell you, it's a - it's a stressful time for us. It's a stressful time for the Forest Service. Passing this bill will help us so that we have long-term sustainability on the ten-year deal, but that's something else that we should work on too.

So you talked about the benefits to the local communities of the, the ranching and the agriculture. Could you also talk about how cattle grazing helps the national grasslands?

I'd love to do that. I tell you what, ranchers are the original conservationists. Nobody loves the land more than we do. Every day we work to protect the land, to preserve it, to make it better, to make it sustainable, for our cattle, for our families, for our livelihoods, for the sportsmen that enjoy it. W- it helps with, uh, invasive species, as we graze, it helps protect against cheatgrass. Grazing protects us against the wildfires that d- that destroy our local economies and costs millions of dollars each year.

So now that I have the Chief French here asking you, trying to following up on what what we've just heard, uh, federal grazing permits from the U. S. Forest Service can be obtained by both from both national forest land, national grassland, currently a lack of certainty that we're hearing about for the communities and for the ranchers uh and lack of clarity for the permittees who wish to renew or obtain permits. How does the Forest Service undergo permit renewals for national forest land compared to the grasslands?

It it's under two different statutes. Mister Cheketz is right. There shouldn't be two different standards. They should be treated the same and we would like to administer them in the same ways.

Great. And then in terms of wildfire, the United States Forest Service manages about hundred ninety-three million acres of land, uh, hundred fifty-four national forests, twenty national grasslands, including, of course, Thunder Basin, National Grassland and my home state of Wyoming, wildfires across the United States burn millions of acres every year, land at risk, homeowners at risk, the ranchers. How does grazing on the Forest Service land actually help mitigate fire risk?

It reduces fine fuels that carry those those uh fires. It reduces uh dead fuels that often are carrying those fires. And most of those grassland systems They evolved over time with fire as a part of them, and so, and with heavy grazing. And so, um, it's a natural part of the system.

Good.

It helps.

Sure. Anything else you'd like to add?

This is so important, Senator, to take care of the ranchers, the local economies. I'm so passionate about ranching. I mean, it is the backbone of America. As you know, in our home state of Wyoming, there's five hundred thousand people and a million cows, and uh, everything people use each day has beef in it, whether it's the makeup, whether it's our shampoo, uh, everything that has glycerin. I mean, beef is important.

It's what's for dinner and breakfast and lunch in one coming.

Beef, beef, beef, beef.

Thank you. Senator Cortes-Meyerstow, thanks for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to the panelists as well. Um, Mr. Regan, let me get, uh, uh, ask you a couple of questions. I appreciate you're here to talk about the Santini-Burton Modernization Act. Um, uh, to start with, why why is the SIRT uh, Santini Burton Modernization Act necessary, if you would address that. And then also, um, how it differs from the original act, um, from nineteen eighty.

Thank you, Senator Cortes Masto. Again, good morning, Chairmember Asso, Ranking Member and members of the subcommittee. Julie Regan here, Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. I will give you some brief introductory remarks and then, uh, continue to fine tune uh point the question. Our agency was formed by an interstate compact between California and Nevada and ratified by Congress in nineteen sixty nine. Our mission is to protect Lake Tahoe, a federally designated outstanding national resource water while supporting our local communities and economy. I do appreciate the opportunity to address your questions in the committee today in support of the Santini Burton Modernization Act S three six nine five, a bi-state bipartisan bill that's of the utmost importance to Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Basin is the ancestral and current home of the Washoe people, the Washoe tribe of Nevada and California as they're known today. Tahoe is also the second deepest lake in the United States, and one of the clearest large lakes in the world. Tahoe's nearly two hundred square mile surface straddles the border of California and Nevada, and at more than sixty-two, in elevation in the sierra nevada mountain range. Tahoe welcomes millions of visitors every year to our public lands. Outdoor recreation and tourism drive our five billion dollar annual economy. This in turn supports our very small year-round population of fifty five thousand people. Tahoe also boasts a sizable community of second homeowners who hail from nearly every state in the nation. Today, nearly eighty percent of the Tahoe Basin is owned and managed by by the United States Forest Service, but it has not always been like this. The first public lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin were established in eighteen ninety-nine as the Lake Tahoe Forest Reserve and totaled thirty-seven thousand acres with no access to Lake Tahoe's beaches. By nineteen sixty, just fifty percent of the Tahoe Basin was publicly owned. The nineteen eighty Santini-Burton Act was essential to Lake Tahoe's conservation and public lands success story. Under the law, funds from the authorized sales of federal lands in Clark County, Nevada were appropriated to the Forest Service to acquire more than sixteen thousand acres of land in the Tahoe Basin. Through conservation and ongoing management, these public lands protect Lake Tahoe's famed clarity, are critical in community forest health and wildfire prevention and offer world-class recreation opportunities. However, changes to the law decades ago inadvertantly limited the law's scope so funds could only be used to acquire land but not to manage them. The lack of management funding contributes to negative environmental community and economic impacts across the region. If enacted, modernization would free up existing funding for ongoing land management, allowing the Tahoe Basin to complete more lake-saving environmental improvement projects. Projects that protect Tahoe's famed clarity, improve recreation access, manage forests, and reduce wildfire risk. The modernized bill enables the Washu tribe of Nevada and California to make a meaningful step toward achieving a- advancing traditional knowledge for forest health management and restoring tribal stewardship on their lands. Finally, the bill maintains the nineteen eighty federal land sale boundaries in Clark County and adds no new cost to taxpayers. The Santini-Burton Modernization Act is the product of a multi-year collaboration by our agency, Tahoe's state and local governments, and the public, the Washoe tribe of Nevada and California, nonprofits, and the private sector. The bill also requires ongoing local input through an annual spending plan and partnerships with state and local jurisdictions. In nineteen eighty, Congress had a bold vision, transforming Tahoe into the national treasure that it is today. Thanks to Santini Burton, Tahoe's unique character continues to be of national significance. But the threats to the lake require new solutions, solutions that the Santini Burton Modernization Act can help deliver. I appreciate the consideration of this cons- this committee today. Hopefully you all have the opportunity to visit Tahoe soon. Samuel Clemens, the American author better known as Mark Twain, is a local legend in Nevada and the Tahoe Basin. He described the power of spending time at Lake Tahoe when he wrote three months of camp life on Lake Tahoe would restore an Egyptian mummy to his pristine vigor and give him an appetite like an alligator, quite a description. I appreciate the opportunity to now answer your direct question. And the main difference that I would like to point out as a summary of my testimony, Senator Cortez Masto and members of the committee, is that the challenges are very different today in twenty twenty six than they were in nineteen eighty. Uh I will uh use a prop to demonstrate the power of the iPhone which did not exist in nineteen eighty. And now with Instagram and social media, people descend in certain places all at one time, too many places and too many uh and too many impacts to our natural resources. We are actually having uh resources degraded on our public lands. And the funds that were used to acquire those lands cannot be used to maintain those lands and to take care of those natural resources. So that is a main difference. And another issue is our uh our wildfire protection and the ability to actively manage lands that were purchased under the sale of Santini Burton funds, for defensible space and fire safety.

Thank you. Let me, let me just ask you one final question here. How um discuss the difference between the funding that uh Lake Tahoe Restoration Act provides versus what Santini Burton uh Modernization Act provides.

Thank you, Senator, for the question, Julie Regan, TRPA's Executive Director of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, which uh you championed and our colleagues across the delegation in California and Nevada, has been vital to the protection of lake of lake clarity, our forest health, fighting aquatic invasive species, And these programs are capital, very large capital investment programs and projects. The Santini-Burton Modernization Act would allow maintenance to support those investments, making good on those investments. And it's a different suite of impacts that we're seeing. The Restoration Act will not address the recreational impacts. The Santini-Burton Modernization Act funds would support maintenance and protection of our recreation assets.

to allow more public access in the future.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you. Senator Murkowski.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh I appreciate you and the ranking member for holding the hearing and including uh S two five five four which is the Alaska Native Landless Equity Act, on the agenda. Um this is this is legislation that has been cosponsored by the entire Alaska delegation. Congressman Begich has introduced his companion in the house. This uh is legislation that we dub our " landless" legislation, and we're seeking to resolve a an injustice that's been um around for about a half a century now in Southeast Alaska. For for reasons that um are are perhaps unknown and and still debated, there's five communities, uh the community of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Teneke and Wrangell, that were omitted from um ANCSA's authorizations to form village back in nineteen seventy-one. And as a result, the Alaska Natives in these communities have not received the lands that they were entitled to under ANCSA, that other Alaska Natives uh received uh a long time ago. And that's left a situation that has just been um unfair, wrong in my view, and - and - and something that needs to be addressed. And it's our responsibility in this committee to attempt to do that. That's what this bill does. It allows formation of five urban corporations, It specifies the exact parcels of land, uh, that have - that ha- they have s- selected to fulfill the land entitlement. And, importantly, it does so while fully protecting public access, valid existing rights, including for fishing, hunting, recreation, subsistence. It's about a hundred and fifteen thousand acres of land for the landless communities. Now, some of you may say, that seems like a lot, but in - in Alaska, uh, or the Southeast region, um, uh, or even the federal holdings in Southeast, which total about twenty-one point nine million acres. What we're talking about here for this landless, um, group is about one half of one percent going to rightful native ownership, uh, while about a hundred and ninety times more stays under federal control. We have worked really hard over the years to bring this legislation to a place where, um, where - where people who are looking at it can say, Uh, this is, this is fair, and this is something that I can support. We've refined it, we worked it over and over again. This committee has seen this issue, uh, before us multiple times. Um, we've held committee hearings on it over and over, uh, in twenty fifteen, twenty twenty three, today, uh, so this is, this is a little bit of a, of a re-run here. But the changes that we have incorporated have been based on what we have heard from many um identifying identifying the challenges, turning them around, and and really turning opponents into supporters. Among them, believe it or not, the Nature Conservancy. Uh, they wrote us a letter back in twenty twenty-three, which we reported to the bill with its passage. And as part of that letter, they say, uh, uh, " too often advocacy in the United States has intentionally sought to undermine the rights of indigenous peoples in the name of conservation." This has caused tremendous harm to Alaska Native peoples and their traditional homelands, and the legacy of this power dynamic continues to this day. With this history in mind, TNC publicly affirms our support for resolution for the landless communities in Southeast Alaska. In assessing this legislation, we hope the voices that are most important to this committee are not those of conservation groups, but rather those of the sovereign nations in Southeast Alaska for whom this has been generation-long injustice. That's from the Nature Conservancy. The Wilderness Society also wrote us a letter apologizing to the landless people for the hurt caused by their past opposition, and declaring their support for the bill. So we have come a long way, uh, colleagues. I'm gonna ask unanimous consent to add those letters, um, from the Nature Conservancy and the Wilderness Society to the hearing record.

Without objection.

But I would ask I would ask colleagues, take a look at them, see the legislation through the the eyes of of some of these conservation groups that are really been following this issue for a long, long time. I think we've worked to strike the the proper balance and we're doing right by a special place, um, by the Tongass. We know that every acre in the Tongass is important to somebody and, and particularly to those who have lived there since time immemorial. I wanna ask one quick question to you, um, Uh, Mister French, you know this, you know this issue very, very well. You have been around it a, a long time. Um, in your, in your testimony, um, you, you acknowledge the special relationship. Uh, you acknowledge the role that the Tongass plays in the economic uh health and prosperity of the region's community. And, and you, you, you, you point out that you're looking forward to discussing with the subcommittee and the uh, the implications of the bill, uh, particularly to the timber program on the Tongass. Um, I, I guess the direct question is, is does the U. S. um, Forest Service, does, does USDA support our landless legislation?

Thank you, Senator, for the question, and you're right, we've, we've, we've spent years working through the details and the individual parcels and,

Yeah.

uh, we completely understand the, the need and the, the whole delegation's uh approach on this and we're very appreciative. We don't oppose the bill. Um, we wanna make sure that everybody does understand there are parts of this that, um, will impact some planned timber sales, and as long as everybody knows that, um, we look forward to working with you as it goes forward.

Well, uh, again, I would, uh, I would just remind that the parcels that have been identified have gone through a very laborious, um, thorough, uh, open process in terms of identification. So I would like to think that we can work with the Forest Service to de-conflict, um, in, in, in these areas. So you've, you've committed to, um, to working with us, and I appreciate that. Uh, BLM has also committed to working, uh, with us on, on some technical modifications. We think We think that we are in pretty good shape because you've been working with us again, whether it's technical modifications or with regards to actual selections. So my goal is to to finally uh bring this home that after uh decades of of a long-standing injustice that the that the people in these uh communities are finally able to to have the equity that they deserve and I would like to think that our agencies are going to be partners with us in achieving just that along with this committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, uh, ranking member. Um, Mister French, um, we've seen a pretty substantial cut in the workforce in New Mexico in the forest service. Um, we've seen that on the Santa Fe, we've seen it on the Carson National Forest, the Cibola, the Lincoln, the Gila, um, it's been felt across the system from issues like trail maintenance to processing permits for outfitter guides to wildfire preparedness. The bills that we're talking about today direct your agency to do a number of things, to take actions and undertake new new endeavors and new policies, all of which require an adequate workforce. How many National Forest System staff would actually be needed to fulfill your mission, all of the things that the Congress has has tasked the national forest system to do, and to properly manage the roughly a hundred and ninety-three million acres of land that the US Forest Service manages.

That's a big question. Um, and, and

But I bet the Forest Service has looked at this.

We have.

I bet there's an answer.

I mean So, the, I mean, the reality is, is if you look at the requirements of statutes of what we're told and asked to, uh, accomplish, um, they're the needs for funding and staffing far exceed the requirements that are placed on us to manage those to standard. I mean, we manage the largest trail system in the country, a hundred and sixty-five thousand, um, miles of trails, and yet the the staffing that we have and the budgets that we have, we struggle to maintain up to a third of it a year. Now, I mean, we are working to overcome the things you just talked about. Today we're announcing two thousand um, summer hires, recreation hires, to assist us in overcoming that work. We've been in a place of getting our workforce to a more sustainable level to the budgets we have, but we do, we have done that work. We can certainly share it with you. i'm not prepared today to give you

yeah no i would um i would appreciate it if you can share that work with us

what we have to you bet

um do we pay our firefighters enough

um in my opinion

yeah in your opinion

no i think that um so i i wanna be thoughtful here because i i don't have with me a particular position from an administration but as a past firefighter myself

yeah

um

Uh, Mister Raby, same question, you manage, the BLM manages two hundred and forty-six million acres. Um, how m- how many folks would we need to adequately manage that?

Uh, Senator, thank you for the question, and and of course, um, in the Bureau of Land Management we have a an organization of about, um, nine thousand employees to manage two hundred and forty-five million acres. Um, we receive, uh, about five dollars and seventy-five cents per acre, um, to manage these lands, which, um, we've always been a lean organization. We've been very focused, um, again on, um, our mission delivery, and at the same time, ensuring that we have um uh organizational efficiency and workforce optimization. So we have these, you know, again, we've always had these um sort of competing objectives at times, but they're complimentary object objectives as well. And so um while uh again we may not have um always received what we may have desired, um we uh we can't look on ourselves and say we we're we're gonna be woeful about what we don't have we're we're very focused on what we do have. And uh, and then we set our priorities accordingly and, and of course we're fully staffed in our, wildland fire organization and as well as law enforcement and um and energy and minerals. Um, and then we uh certainly rely on a lot of partners to help us, um between state and local um uh organizations as well.

The, the parcels that were identified for withdrawal in the Buffalo Track Protection Act are, they, they make up roughly a little over four thousand acres. Um, one of my concerns is that they're kind of scattered through residential neighborhoods. So the impacts of a gravel mine amongst a residential community would be felt pretty acutely and residents are rightly worried about health impacts, noise, particulate pollution, as well as disruption to wildlife in the area. Um, I mean, that's kind of the reason why there there is, to my knowledge, no real opposition to this legislation. There's literally a gravel mine just down the road that is very successful and people are OK with because it's not in the middle of a residential community. Do you think that a suburban neighborhood is the appropriate place for a gravel mine?

Uh, Senator, thank you again for the question. And, and, um, when we look at the proposal for mineral withdrawals that can, uh, preclude, uh, opportunities and options for, again, what we believe is, uh, uh, responsible development, um, that can take in, uh, to account local considerations.

How, I'm sorry, Mister Raby.

Um, we

How is it responsible to put a very noisy, very particulate, heavy industrial activity in the middle of a suburban neighborhood? I, I don't understand the responsible part of that statement.

We go through a lengthy process between the environmental reviews and the

I, I know the process because I heard about it from all of the community members in that area. i don't know of anyone who supports this like your position the blm position has literally no community support do you listen to the community before you make a decision like that

well senator of course we listen to the community we have our local line officers our district managers field managers who who absolutely are engaged with

i

the community and they have to also account for the national policy direction when we have a declared national energy emergency which by reference includes a mineral emergency we have to make it our option.

How how does producing gravel solve the national energy emergency?

Yeah, it's a mineral resource that again provides uh opportunity for development in

Right. Which we produce

mmm

five miles away. In abundance.

Your your point's well taken, I understand, and

I My point is that your policy in this case is completely disconnected from the local community and while we have very wide opinions on this committee. Um, where we get crosswise is when there is a federal policy dictated from Washington DC that is completely disconnect- and and this is like where Senator Murkowski and I actually agree, it's where Senator Daines and I actually agree. When we get in trouble is when we don't listen to the local community. And in this case, it is my view that the administration and the blm is completely ignoring the local community and so um ranking member cortes masto i wanna enter into the uh record if there's no objection all of the community groups from local tribes to the county to the local municipality to the neighborhood association that this would impact uh their views on the buffalo track protection act

Without objection.

Thank you.

Anything else, any other additional questions you would like to please.

I do, Mister Chairman, um uh uh thank you for the opportunity here. Uh, Mister French, let me talk to you something similar, uh on the same vein that you're hearing I think um from um some of my colleagues. I wanna talk about S thirteen forty nine, which is the the Ruby Mountain um protection act. Uh in December um Senator Heinrich had asked you at a hearing here the agency's decision to rescind a land withdrawal for the the Pecos watershed in New Mexico. And at that time, you replied, the administration's policy is to preserve the spaces we have right now for future development until such time that we understand what our current mineral development is across the agency. I respect that. The agency, however, Mister French, um, also rescinded then an administrative withdrawal for the Ruby Mountains in Northern Nevada. And I know you're familiar with this, cuz we've talked about this. However, the agency already understands the current mineral development potential in the rubies, because in twenty nineteen, under the first Trump administration, the Forest Service released a decision saying, with the overall and favorable non-conducive oil and gas geologic conditions, and the no to very low to low potential for oil and gas, these lands have low energy resource values. Offering low energy resource value lands would not serve the best interest of the public from an industrial environmental perspective. So, this bill that we are introducing is merely a codification of the Trump administration's findings in i- in um, twenty seventeen. So I guess my question to you is why, why are we still here with the withdrawal? Why are we still fighting this? And why are you still opposed to moving forward?

Senator, I I understand exactly why why you're asking the question. That was the decision in two thousand nineteen uh and will continue to protect in that local way the the further development of oil and gas you know the the what we're talking about here is where a a national policy approach which again from the administration is about making sure that we maintain the flexibility for future mineral development um aligned with policies that doing something through an administrative or legislative withdraw uh doesn't take into account the local needs and i think that was part of the conversation um that was just happening to to understand that in this case you are seeing a position in a statement that in general does not support any sort of withdrawals um but it doesn't change the fact that two thousand nineteen decision that we made that made that finding um that essentially limits oil and gas development in the ruby mountains

so um then let me jump to you mister rab on january fourteenth twenty twenty five the blm initiated a two-year segregation to consider a twenty year administrative public land withdrawal for the ashmeadows national wildlife refuge in in surrounding blm lands that have been threatened by mining proposals to drill into the sensitive groundwater system which could dry up seeps and springs that are the core of this refuge you as well know the devil Devil's Hole Unit of Death Valley National Park and the lifeblood of the surrounding area. Local community leaders are in unanimous consent in their desire to see this withdrawal. Uh, a meeting took place on February twenty seventh, twenty twenty five, to receive public comment. Um, but it is unclear if anything is taking place. So, Director Rabea, I'm I'm disappointed, obviously, in the Ruby Mountains withdrawal decision. Don't quite understand it still. But I am glad the segregation for ash meadows has remained in effect under the same administration. Little curious about why there's a difference between the two. Just pointing that out. But can you give me the status of the withdrawal?

Uh, Senator, thank you for the question, and the status is that, uh, the the partial segregation is still in place. Um, it is in about the, you know, fourteen months of the two-year partial segregation. Um, we continue to to work on, um, you know, with our partners with the Fish and Wildlife Service, um the uh evaluation um of that area um we no longer have the same uh mining proposal out there currently and so that um uh you know does not exist out there um that

mmm

application and so we will um take that under consideration as to whether um a mineral withdrawal would even be appropriate to um uh advise on in the future

do you think you're gonna need more time for any analysis and if so would you let us know and seek an extension of it

But we will certainly let you go.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, I think uh Senator Daines is on the way down to ask a couple of questions related to his bill but any other thoughts that any of you had based on the hearings and what you've heard from one another today about ways we can be helpful?

Yeah. Every everyone's looking at me, but I uh I better say something, right?

Yeah, we're having this hearing in indiv this is a key this is the key in my opinion, this is the key bill of the

Well, Senator Brasso, I tell you what, I, grazing is so important. And grazing really protects our nation, protects our food supply. Uh, we've seen a lot of, a lot of things in the news lately about beef prices. And it's, uh, even with beef prices the way it is today, guys, it's still tough to make it as a rancher. Um, the beef price is similar to what it was in nineteen eighty. When you add in inflation, when you add in all the different costs of operating, So, to tie it back to our bill. Our bill is so important to protect our ranching, to protect our families, the people that work every day to feed this nation, to clothe this nation, to give us the different supplies. And I'm grateful for our forest service and BLM partners. Uh, with, I affectionately say that we own the grass, you guys own the land. And I'm grateful for them. Without the forest service and BLM, we couldn't make it work. What a nice nation this is, to have the opportunity to work together. uh, with our federal lands to make it possible to feed our nation and to allow me as a rancher to do what I love, what I'm passionate about, to ranch, provide for my family, provide for my cattle, and I promise you that we take care of the land. We love the land more than anyone, and we, we, we appreciate that opportunity and our partners here in this room to, to allow us to do it. It's, it's the honor of our lives and we will take care of it. Good, thank you. Thank you.

Well, you mentioned earlier the, the best stewards of the land, the people that live on the land, the people that are there, We talk about the environment. The respect for the environment of the people that are on that land.

Yes. Yeah, we love it. And, you know, we talked, I heard these guys talking about fire. Uh, we're grateful also for our partnership when we fight with the forest service and BLM. But I wanna just add something here. The important thing is cooperation and collaboration. I serve on two different fire, rural fire communities, and uh, when the ranchers go fight, fires were there first. And our forest service and BLM partners come, and it works so good when we work together, and my encouragement to save money would be to have more local leadership with our BLM and forest service partners when we fight these fires they have these command centers and uh it's important that they involve the local people there.

Great. Well, thanks so very much uh to all of you uh we're gonna turn to Senator Daines for questions but we are maybe other members may have additional questions, and they'll be sent to you uh there's gonna be a deadline

Great. Jim Brasso, thank you. Mister Raby, when FLITMA was enacted, the BLM was directed to identify lands with wilderness characteristics. Congress has the opportunity to consider adding these lands to the national wilderness preservation system. Today, the BLM manages four hundred eighty-seven wilderness study areas, totaling about eleven point one million acres. Thirty-seven of those four hundred and eighty-seven are in Montana. Until Congress decides what to do with the WSA's, the BLM continues to manage the area with the status in limbo indefinitely, that's study status. My question is, Mister Raby, what are the long-term consequences for recreation, forest management, and even wildfire response of wilderness study areas not getting resolved?

Senator Daines, thank you very much for the question, and and certainly having that wilderness study designation complicates multiple use management. And so it, um, inherently limits, um, our ability to, um, carry out uh hazardous fuels reduction treatments um it can affect uh uh forced management activities it can create limitations um on recreation and access um so it creates a layer of complicating you know uh management direction um on areas that as you noted previously um especially these ones uh in montana that are before us um in your proposed legislation those were never found to be

um of of suitable wilderness characteristics

mmm

and that's been since nineteen eighty six and so they they do complicate management multiple use management out there and uh certainly their release would would help um uncomplicate that this isn't meant to be a um trivial pursuit question but do you remember who the president was in nineteen eighty six

well i believe that was ronald reagan

ronald reagan

yeah

so it it goes back to the the reagan presidency in terms of how long this has been in limbo um, and and needs to be resolved and, and we're talking about in this bill I have a hundred thousand acres of eleven million acres that are currently in limbo under the wilderness study area designations. Uh, do you agree that Congress does need to move forward to finally resolve these eleven million acres currently in limbo to either put them in permanent real- wilderness or back to general management?

Uh, Senator, the short answer is yes.

Thank you. Deputy Chief French, the Forest Service determined the Middle Fork Judith wilderness study area was identified as unsuitable for wilderness over thirty years ago. And that was reaffirmed again in the fall of twenty twenty one, after extensive public engagement. Could you briefly talk about what led to this determination and what public input there was in that process.

yeah um our force planning process that look at this the second time uh the engagement occurred over the course of six years many many public meetings i think there were over a hundred organizations that commented we had uh about twelve hundred individual comment letters that came in and again for the second time uh, it was found that there it didn't have the characteristics to remain as wilderness. And so, I mean, we did our part of what Congress asked us to do, but it it sits there still kind of in this limbo after we did the assessment, and it it mandates a management that isn't aligned with what the community told us it should be.

And I think that that's important testimony and thank you, uh, that there was a very public process with a lot of public input. And, um, again, uh, with these WSAs, when they're deemed suitable for wilderness, we should be looking at taking the next step to make them wilderness. But when they're deemed not suitable for wilderness, we should return them back to the general management status, which is, I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, still has multiple protections as it relates to, you know, the general management status. It's just they won't be managed as de facto wilderness as they are today. Uh, the Forest Service also manages three active grazing alignments. that cover the majority of the WSA. Got a poster board here behind me. In nineteen twenty nineteen the Forest Service reported to the Montana legislature that there's no mining and vegetative management, uh, and the vegetative management is minimal, uh, though the forest has recommended, and I quote, nearly one million board feet of harvest per year for fuels management and to help maintain early successional habitat for elk. Unquote. My question is, could you confirm for this committee that this continues to be the recommendation and that releasing the Middle Fork Judith back to general management will benefit hazardous fuels reduction and wildlife habitat?

Um, from my conversations back with the forest supervisor when they were doing this plan, generally I'd say yes. I don't, I haven't heard anything that would change that. Um, you know, we are seeing a need to get in and actively manage these areas that have had fire excluded for as long as they have and have had no active management. I have not seen any change from that, so yes, generally I'd agree.

As we say out west, in these dry, uh, semi-arid climates, that either we are gonna get in and proactively manage the forest, or the forest starts to manage us, certainly through these catastrophic wildfires that we see. as fire season has lengthened, temperatures have increased. Um, how does the current designation affect the grazing allotments? And what happens if the WSA is returned to general management?

Well, I mean, I think the the the the things to remember here is that it's being managed as wilderness right now. And what that does for us is it changes the way we can access things, the way that we can do improvements for our permittees that have range allotments and those It limits our ability for flexibility for increasing some of those allotments because wilderness requires you only to allow what was historically there, when it was designated. Um, and then it just limits our ability for active management in those areas. Um, even to, in some places, folks not wanting to see prescribed fire, although we can do it. So all of that, um, is limited by the designation of which again at the request of congress to see if it was even suitable for that designation through a big uh large public process we determined no twice which French thank you you're welcome

well thanks so very much to to all of you i appreciate uh all of your input and your testimony was very helpful uh for all of the members and uh we're looking forward to moving these bills forward so i appreciate your time this this hearing is adjourned

thank you