Guest column: A push for a change

Over the past several years, an effort has been underway to try to update boilerplate language that goes into proposed wilderness designation legislation.

Whenever wilderness designations are discussed and the conversation gets to livestock grazing on designated wilderness, those who are promoting expanding wilderness normally express that such a designation (whether the land was ever in a wilderness study area or just now was thought to have “wilderness characteristics”) won’t impact livestock grazing. We’re told that livestock grazing is allowed on wilderness designated areas.

In Nevada, U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen’s proposed wilderness bill, S. 3593 (also nicknamed the “Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act”), the provisions regarding livestock in wilderness states:

• In General – The grazing of livestock in a wilderness area managed by the Secretary, if established before the date of enactment of this Act, shall be allowed to continue, subject to such reasonable regulations, policies and practices as the Secretary considers to be necessary in accordance with:

• Section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(4); and

• The guidelines set forth in Appendix A of the report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress (House Report 101-405)”

When the discussions first began (in 2016) on what would become “The Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act,” research uncovered the actual language of the “Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990” – H.R. 2570, and in particular “House Report No. 101-405” that went with that legislation.

On Feb. 21, 1990 the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs agreed to the way that livestock grazing on the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 would be dealt with.

That language became the boilerplate wording that would go with the Wilderness Acts from that point to now.

The 34-year-old boilerplate language notes that under the language of the Wilderness Act it is the clear intent that livestock grazing “and activities and the necessary facilities to support a livestock grazing program, will be permitted to continue…” In this case it applied to National Forest wilderness areas.

Continuing with their committee report, the language of the 96th Session of Congress, House Report N. 96-617, connected the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) into the same guidelines that they were going to establish. The 96th Session of Congress covered the years 1979 to 1981.

The guidelines pointed out these key points:

There shall be no curtailment of grazing in wilderness areas simply because an area, or has been designated as wilderness “nor should wilderness designations be used as an excuse by administration to slowly “phase out” grazing.

The maintenance of supporting facilities existing in an area prior to its classification as wilderness (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.) is permissible in wilderness.

“Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other activities may be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized equipment.”

“The use of motorized equipment should be based on a rule of practical necessity and reasonableness.”

“Moreover, under the rule of reasonableness, occasional use of motorized equipment should be permitted where practical alternatives are not available and such use would not have a significant adverse effect on the natural environment.

The replacement or reconstruction of deteriorated facilities or improvements should be required to be accomplished using “natural materials”, unless the material and labor costs of using natural materials are such that their use would not impose unreasonable additional costs on grazing permittees.

The construction or new improvements or replacement of deteriorated facilities in wilderness is permissible if in accordance with these guidelines and management plans governing the area involved.

“However, the construction of new improvements should be primarily for the purpose of resource protection and the more effective management of these resources rather than to accommodate increased numbers of livestock.”

The use of motorized equipment for emergency purposes such as rescuing sick animals or the placement of feed in emergency situations is also permissible.

“This privilege is to be exercised only in true emergencies and should not be abused by the permittees.”

In order to make the requirements more transparent than being buried in references to a House Committee report that was adopted in 1990, the proposal that was made to Senator Rosen was to substitute the boilerplate language with this language…

LIVESTOCK GRAZING LANGUAGE

The Livestock Grazing guidelines and policies for designated Wilderness and National Conservation Areas under the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act are as follows:

• There shall be no curtailments of grazing in wilderness areas or National Conservation Areas simply because an area is, or has been designated as wilderness or a National Conservation Area, nor should wilderness or National Conservation designations be used an excuse by administrators to slowly "phase out" grazing. Any adjustments in the numbers of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness areas should be made as a result of revisions in the normal grazing and land management planning and policy setting process, giving consideration to legal mandates, range condition, and the protection of the range resource from deterioration.

It is anticipated that the number of livestock permitted to graze in wilderness and National Conservation Areas would remain at the approximate levels at the time an area enters the wilderness system or is in a National Conservation Area. If land management plans reveal conclusively that increased livestock numbers or animal unit months (AUMs) could be made available with no adverse impact on wilderness or National Conservation values such as plant communities, primitive recreation, and wildlife populations or habitat, some increases in AUMs may be permissible.

This is not to imply, however, that wilderness or National Conservation Areas lends itself to AUM or livestock increases and construction of substantial new facilities that might be appropriate for intensive grazing management.

The maintenance of supporting facilities, existing in an area prior to its classification as wilderness or National Conservation Areas (including fences, line cabins, water wells and lines, stock tanks, etc.), is permissible in wilderness and in National Conservation Areas. Where motorized equipment was used to establish livestock facilities or has been used to maintain these facilities since being established, the use of motorized equipment will be continued to be allowed as necessary for maintenance.

This may include, for example, the use of backhoes to maintain stock ponds, pickup trucks for major fence repairs, or specialized equipment to repair stock watering facilities.

The replacement or reconstruction of deteriorated facilities or improvements should not be required to be accomplished using "natural materials.”

The construction of new improvements should be primarily for the purpose of resource protection and the more effective management of these resources rather than to accommodate increased numbers of livestock.

The use of motorized equipment for emergency purposes such as rescuing sick animals or the placement of feed in emergency situations is also permissible.”

That language was not only not accepted, but it was simply ignored without any discussion or response.

Because the “Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act” also includes large swaths of National Conservation Area designations the thought was to include the protections for livestock grazing and assurances to be able to continue with livestock grazing. There are actually more acres established as National Conservation Areas than Wilderness.

There are also concerns whether land use planning processes for the specific National Conservation Areas might not be used as the means to administratively wipe out livestock grazing or force it into untenable options that prompt livestock allotment owners to throw in the towel.

The unwillingness to consider the proposal as a compromise were major reasons for Nevada Farm Bureau and other livestock grazing advocates to take a position of opposition to S. 3593. These reasons were communicated with the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forest and Mining Committee on Energy and Natural Resources when the hearing on S. 3593 was held on June 12, 2024.

Another reason for the opposition to the legislation was the inclusion of language in the bill which provided for the “voluntary donation of grazing permits and leases.”

In a separate section of the legislation, the bill granted authority to the Secretary of Interior to accept valid existing leases or permits for livestock grazing on public lands of the Mosquito Valley and Horse Lake allotments.

Existing laws don’t allow for retirement or “voluntary donations” of existing grazing permits. If a permittee doesn’t want to continue with their grazing allotment, they can sell their permit or give it up to be reissued to someone else who would like to own the allotment.

There is a bit of a contention that the provisions of the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act aren’t very accepting to changes which would clarify positive recognition for livestock grazing on designated Wilderness or National Conservation Areas, but provides for an anti-livestock grazing owner to permanently delete livestock grazing on the allotments that they control.

Under ideal conditions the Truckee Meadows Public Lands Management Act will fail to gain adoption into law and perhaps future Wilderness bills will be able to provide for the transparent authorization for livestock grazing and assurance for being able to carry out necessary maintenance and improvements to protect and enhance rangelands.