The Progressive Rancher - SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2023

Livestock scale inspection delays, notify the NDA of upcoming shipment dates to mitigate impacts to business

The Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA) Division of Measurement Standards livestock scale inspections are currently experiencing delays. In order for livestock to be shipped for a sale, livestock scales must have been inspected within eight (8) months of the ship date, per the Packers and Stockyards Act. Scale inspections are ongoing, but to mitigate any potential impacts to industry and continuity of commerce, we are requesting notice of upcoming shipment dates prior to Sept. 30, 2023, so inspectors can conduct an inspection and certify scales in time for shipments.

Please provide the following information to the NDA via email to ce@agri.nv.gov or call 775-353-3782. 1) Contact name 2) Business name 3) Contact phone 4) Location address 5) Date of upcoming shipment 6) Date of last scale inspection (if known) or fill out this form: http://tinyurl.com/LivestockScaleInspectionForm

The Nevada Farm Bureau Federation wishes the following to be included in the public comments pertaining to the proposed rule by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service to change the regulations for listing or delisting species and designating critical habitat.... progressiverancher.com/ nevada-farm-bureau-submits-comments-on-proposed-rule-changes/

The NDA is requesting applications for our Foundation Seed Program. Through the program we aim to assist growers who are interested in producing native plant species, with the intent to sell seed that can be used in Nevada for restoration needs. The NDA will provide seed, expert advice, and technical resources for those selected growers. Requests for applications will be sent out twice a year, once in the Fall and again in the Spring with this Fall deadline for applications being September 29, 2023 at 5pm. The species offered may vary, depending on availability. If you have any questions, or if you would like to submit an application for seed, please contact Stephen Kielius at seed@agri. nv.gov or download the application here: progressiverancher.com/ foundation-seed-program-fall-2023-application-period/

2nd in National Competition

38 UNR | Dr. William Payne: Remarks on Public Lands Rule

43 Precision Grazing At Its Best: Weed Warriors & USFS Union

president ' s perspective

It seems like we've been about two months behind on everything this year, but hopefully Fall has fallen on time and you've started the Fall Works.

This year’s work should be really enjoyable thanks to solid cattle markets, brought to you courtesy of your Nevada Cattlemen's Association (if we're to blame for down markets, we're to credit for the high side, no?).

With calves weaned, cows worked and market cattle shipped, our Brand Inspectors are an integral part of the commerce we conduct in the Fall. Leonard Hopkins, Jack Rice, Carl and Lavon Hanks, Bill Maupin, Jim Andre; these were a few of the folks that epitomized the brand inspectors we revered as an important part of the Fall Works.

I'm happy to report that we're trending back to the Brand Department we can rely on, thanks

to Director Goicoechea's leadership, most of the problems plaguing the Department have been ironed out and we're on a good path forward.

There will be bumps in the road this Fall, as inspectors are being hired even as I write this, but the Department is once again an employer that the best stockmen among us will want to be a part of.

Your Association leadership will continue to work with elected and appointed officials to ensure that our commerce runs smoothly.

Now if we can just get a handle on the weather....

Jon Griggs President National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

by Martin Paris | NCA Executive Director | O: 775-738-9214

Fall Nevada Cattlemen's Association Update

I hope this writing finds you all well and enjoying what is left of what seems to be a really short, fast summer.

After the last few years of a less than stellar cattle market, it’s nice to see the rebound we have been experiencing so far in 2023. The 5-market average for a steer earlier this summer in July was about 27% higher than it was the same time last year. While I am by no means an economist, the data appears to tell us that beef demand is strong both domestically and globally while cattle supplies are down to their lowest levels since 2014. After the butt kicking most of us have endured the past few years, we all could use a break. All things considered; I remain optimistic that higher prices will continue on for a while at least.

Last month, NCA held our summer Board of Directors meeting and got the opportunity to hear updates and discuss issues with representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, Nevada Department of Agriculture, and the Nevada Department of Wildlife. Some takeaways from the meeting…

• BLM is pressing forward with review of over 200,000 comments on the proposed Conservation and Landscape Health Rule. At the same time the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee recently passed the 2023 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations package which includes an amendment to prohibit the BLM from using any funds to implement the proposed rule.

The appropriations bill still needs to be passed by the full House of Representatives as well as agreed to by the Senate. Congress has until September 1st to get all 12 of the government’s appropriations packages finished.

• Currently 4 of Nevada’s counties have declared a state of emergency due to the overpopulation of wild horses. The declared state of emergencies themselves do not trigger any sort of automatic solution, however, the declarations from county elected officials express the dire need to resolve the issue and are a useful tool in discussions with federal lawmakers.

• NCA is working to renew our Cooperative Monitoring Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. The Agreement is intended to provide a framework for how monitoring data should be collected and expresses the importance and need for a collaborative monitoring approach.

By the time you read this article, NCA will have been well represented at the Public Lands Council Annual Meeting in Pendleton, OR. These meetings present an excellent opportunity to not only set policy important to Nevada’s livestock producers, but also connect

with livestock producers in other states as well as key agency personnel. We are looking forward to another productive meeting and plan to continue to make headway on several different fronts.

Lastly, the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association is eager to announce this year’s convention. The 88th Annual Nevada Cattlemen’s Association Convention and Trade Show will be held November 16-18, 2023, at the Winnemucca Convention Center in Winnemucca, NV. As NCA members around the state gather in Winnemucca, we will celebrate a lifetime of traditions, revise, and review policies, and take a chance to enjoy our friends and neighbors.

NCA staff and officers are working hard to provide you with a memorable and educational experience. We would like to thank the sponsors and exhibitors for helping make our event a success.

To see a tentative schedule of convention or obtain a copy of our trade show/sponsorship packet, please look online at our website at nevadacattlemen.org. We are constantly updating it. We look forward to seeing you all at convention!

Nevada Farm Bureau

Farmers’ Clean Water Commitment

www.fb.org/issue/regulatory-reform/

waters-of-the-united-states

Farmers play a leading role in protecting our nation’s streams and wetlands. Over the last 15 years, the number of acres protected through wetland and buffer practices under the Conservation Reserve Program has more than doubled (from 2.5 million acres to 5.3 million acres).

More than 140 million acres of U.S. farmland are used for voluntary conservation efforts and wildlife habitats—an area equal to the states of California and New York combined.

Farmers advocate for and support commonsense rules that don’t require a team of consultants and lawyers to navigate.

The Clean Water Act gives the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over “navigable waters,” which are defined as “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). Nearly any activity that occurs within a WOTUS requires a permit (unless the activity is exempt), which can take years to obtain and cost tens or even hundreds

of thousands of dollars. A simple misjudgment by a farmer in determining whether a low spot is or isn’t WOTUS could trigger huge civil fines and even criminal punishment. Over the years, the EPA and the Corps have attempted to expand the definition of WOTUS to regulate land features that occasionally get wet. Perhaps most controversial, the agencies have attempted to regulate “ephemeral” features, or areas of land that become wet only in response to precipitation. They employed an ambiguous and subjective “significant nexus” test, claiming any such feature with a “significant nexus” to a WOTUS is itself regulated—and they acknowledged that almost any feature could be viewed as having a “significant nexus.” Farm Bureau has pushed back to protect farmers from the threat of potential prosecution just from farming their land or installing conservation measures. We have fought for clear rules that farmers and ranchers can follow as they work to care for our natural resources.

In January 2023, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized a new WOTUS rulemaking that replaced the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule. In their new rule, the agencies doubled down on the unworkable “significant nexus test” and created more risk and uncertainty for farmers and other landowners.

AFBF and others sued the EPA and the Corps over the 2023 WOTUS Rule. District Court rulings have prevented the 2023 Rule from going into effect in 27 states. The litigation is still ongoing, but a May 2023 Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA leaves no doubt that the 2023 Rule will be struck down.

In the May 2023 Sackett decision, the Supreme Court considered Chantell and Michael Sackett’s legal challenge to EPA’s claim that their residential lot contains wetlands that are “waters of the U.S.” The Court rejected EPA’s claim concerning the Sacketts’ land. In their decision, the Justices uniformly rejected the “significant nexus” test for identifying WOTUS. All nine Justices agreed that this test is a clear overreach of EPA’s authority. The Court in Sackett also established a clear definition of “waters of the U.S.” based on the language and intent of Congress in the Clean Water Act. This Supreme Court decision resolves years of uncertainty and provides clear boundaries for EPA and the Corps in any future enforcement or regulations.

AFBF, state Farm Bureau organizations, and many others supported the Sacketts before the Supreme Court. The Court's decision vindicates Farm Bureau’s long-fought battles over the definition of WOTUS and the need for certainty for farmers and ranchers. In fact, the Supreme Court adopted the exact position

that AFBF argued for in its brief to the court. AFBF is grateful for the clarity that this Supreme Court decision provides for farmers and other landowners.

The Clean Water Act regulates our nation’s “navigable waters”—also called “waters of the United States.” It imposes huge fines or even criminal liability for putting almost anything into those waters without a federal permit.

The Clean Water Act recognizes that some surface waters should be regulated by the federal government, while some should be protected under state law. The Sackett v. EPA decision clarified which waters are subject to which type of protection, preserving state authority over many land features that only carry water when it rains.

The Safe Drinking Water Act is the primary law that protects all public drinking water supplies across the U.S. Changes to Clean Water Act regulations do not reduce Safe Drinking Water Act protections.

Stay up to date with AFBF’s efforts on WOTUS and other issues at FB Advocacy: www.fb.org/advocacy/grassroots-andpolitical-advocacy

AFBF is a member of the Waters Advocacy Coalition.

Lifetime Pipe for Agriculture

Let’s Talk Ag

By Staci Emmn | Editorial

Embracing Urban Agriculture and Planning for our Water Rights Future

As life changes after COVID-19, how do we embrace urban agriculture and plan for our water rights future, while sustaining the foundation of Nevada agriculture?

My Extension team and I just finished the Small Agriculture Conference in Las Vegas on August 25-26, 2023, and we will be setting the date soon for the 2024 Urban Agriculture Conference in Las Vegas. As a part of our program, we created “Southern Nevada Agriculture Roundtables.” The Roundtables were organized to discuss what agriculture production (vegetables, meat, spices, cottage foods, etc.) looks like in Southern Nevada. We held our first Roundtable on July 26 with about 12 people. We asked each of those 12 people attending to bring two other people for the second Roundtable held August 8. They were successful, and attendance increased to about 20 people. Our third Roundtable was the evening of August 25 at the Small Agriculture Conference, and we had over 70 people in the room.

The third Roundtable stirred a lot of emotion. We had one attendee in particular that broke down in front of the group asking for help for his community. He and his wife are retired and his wife’s passion is helping military veterans, and his passion is helping kids. They live in the Historic Westside of Las Vegas. He had been utilizing his own money to put in school gardens for the kids in his neighborhood schools. He said with the increased costs of living, that he and his wife were struggling and he needed help. He was also quick to ask what was the difference between horticulture and agriculture?

The Historic Westside is a 3.5 square-mile area located northwest of the Las Vegas Strip and the interchange of 1-15 to US 95, and is primarily an AfricanAmerican neighborhood. We had several individuals attending the conference who are growing food in their neighborhoods for their communities. One farm had over 50 fruit trees and boxed gardens to support their neighborhood with food access. The question then becomes, is this agriculture?

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) definition of an agricultural producer is the ability to produce and sell $1,000 or more in product. It also can get more complicated as seen in the definition below off the USDA website that if the farm can’t sell, there is a point system. The basis is the potential sales of $1,000 or more. Traditionally, those of us involved in agricultural in Nevada have not recognized the very small grower that has about $1,000 in sales of an agricultural product. We have always categorized them as a gardener and viewed it as horticulture.

While working on the Roundtables, I have had to do a lot of research into different USDA definitions. Actually, USDA sees horticulture as a branch of agriculture. What I am still struggling with, and need to work through, is the idea of what “Urban Agriculture” looks like, and the water and/or “water rights” that accompanies this growing movement in Nevada’s largest city.

Our University of Nevada, Reno Extension Director recently sent out an email to our Master Gardener Coordinator in Las Vegas because she was asking about the differences between what her Master Gardener programs do and this term called “Urban Agriculture.”

While our leadership agrees that there are more questions than answers, it is also believed that an “Urban Agriculture” program is complex and multifaceted, and program development may be challenging. But, it is believed Extension is uniquely positioned to engage, facilitate and lead. One of the simple things that we have found out through these Roundtables, is that Extension needs to be better connected to their own programs in the state. We are working on that issue to assist small beginning farmers and ranchers.

It is not hard for me to embrace, growing up in a cattle and hay operation, that people with orchards and/or vegetable gardens are considered agricultural operations. In fact, I see these individuals working very hard every day. It is also not hard for me to personally consider a brewing company, an ag product distributor, or a marketer to be an agriculture business. My biggest issue is how we embrace the different kinds of agriculture in Nevada and how we preserve the water rights to do it. We are going to continue our Roundtables, and have established working group topics. The 70 attendees at the conference will be able to select which working group topic they were most passionate about. There are going to be agriculture education groups that work to bring the “Farm Fest” back to Horseman’s park where thousands of elementary school kids experience what agriculture is, there will be a working group to access where and what kind of farmers markets are needed, and one group has a passion for a local food cooperative grocery store. There is passion, and where there is passion, there is usually action to follow.

While I am excited about the individuals and their passion, I am also nervous. Nervous because of the number of people growing food, or involved in the processing and distribution of food, that are coming forward. We knew they were in Southern Nevada, we just did not know where. After three Roundtables, we have found enough individuals meeting the USDA definitions to hold tours and collaborate on educational activities.

I am also nervous that we need to keep water use in mind. We have some very creative individuals, but water is Nevada’s most precious resource. I am hoping as we keep moving forward, that we will be able to build collaborations through water conservation and new technologies that allow people to have their small farms. I am not yet sure what water rights looks like for “Urban Agriculture,” but I have a feeling that we are going to educate ourselves very quickly.

Nevada/Utah Ranch w/ Winter Range

The expanded Bar O Ranch is 909 deeded Acres with over 500 acres with underground Water rights and approx. 400 acres under 4 Center pivots all in perennial crop. 300 head year around without much if any hay plus hay to sell or use the pivots for pasture and run more cows! Three good homes plus other improvements, BLM winter permits out the gate and spring and Summer range not far away. Price Reduced to $4,500,000.

Battle Mountain Farm

369 Acres with two center Pivots covering 250 acres now in Orchard Grass and a Alfalfa/Grass mixture including a dash of corn. If you’re more into cattle, pasture some and raise hay on the rest. Nice home with 4 bedroom 2 bath plus big shop with concrete floor and a machine shed and other useful sheds. At the end of the road but not far out of town. Borders BLM. $1,800,000.

Current Industry Issues

Well by now a lot of you readers and myself have enjoyed the high prices received by Nevada calves at private treaty and summer auctions. Attending the Superior Video Royale in Winnemucca, the friends and others I visited with were all very pleased with the results, and by the way, deservedly so. The marketing experts I have talked with this summer are cautiously optimistic this calf market will last for at least another year and possibly longer. I am sure most of you have read about the factors contributing to this optimism. Factors I have read or heard about are the nation’s cow herd is at its lowest point in a generation, not many heifers are being retained, the drought in the west has been broken or at least slowed and therefore there is a stocker market again and even though fed cattle supplies remain tight, demand for the product is still high with customers paying premium prices for quality.

Yes therefore, there are some sighs of relief in the country, but I also shared stories with friends in Winnemucca about the toughest winter many of us had ever experienced and all the logistical, health and death loss problems many ranchers here in Nevada and the west experienced.

I guess this is solid evidence that in the best of times being in agriculture is a challenge. I believe the experience of this past year supports that notion. The calf market has been great, but the winter and spring weather has been tough to deal with.

But there are also other challenges with which ranchers must negotiate and that is what I would like us to pay attention to, and not lose sight of the bigger picture. Before I get into a discussion of some of the other challenges, I want to give a shout out to industry organizations who are dealing with these issues daily and without whom agriculture would be in a very negative place. If you aren’t a member of one or more of these groups, you should be because you can’t operate your businesses and work on these other issues with the full-time effort they require.

For ranchers grazing livestock on the federal lands primarily in the west, the Public Lands Council is the premier advocate in Congress and the land management agencies. The National Cattlemen’ s Beef Association (NCBA) is also the largest and most effective advocate for the beef industry in Washington

D.C. and across the country. Furthermore, as a contractor for the Beef Checkoff, NCBA has helped create programs funded by the Beef Checkoff to advertise, educate and promote all the good that has been done for the beef industry because of the Checkoff. In addition, the Policy Division of NCBA has lobbied in Washington D.C. to advance or defeat legislation impacting the beef industry in positive and negative ways, and to interact with relevant Federal Agencies.

The American Sheep Industry (ASI) has a strong presence in Washington D.C. This is also true of the American Farm Bureau as well as being a contractor to the Checkoff. Furthermore, some of these same National Groups provide advice and council to state beef organizations.

All these associations develop their public policy positions from the ground up. For instance, in my own personal experience, I have seen this grass roots process at both the state and national level and here in Nevada I have seen the Farm Bureau develop and implement its policy from the local level to the state and national organizations. The criticisms one reads about these big associations being top- level driven are just not true. I spent over twenty years in leadership positions at the state and national levels in beef industry organizations as a President, Committee Chair, Regional Vice-President and National Treasurer. I was never pressured by the top Officers or paid leadership of any organization to take certain positions or push certain agendas that weren’t supported by grass-roots votes. Anyone who alleges this is not the case about organizations I have been involved with are lying and misleading in their efforts.

The list of issues these associations are dealing with is a long one. For instance, the Farm Bill, which is normally a bipartisan effort in Congress, is currently tied up in partisan wrangling and is due to be passed this year. That may not happen and if Congress can’t reconcile its differences, the current Farm Bill will remain in force.

We’ve recently seen six western Governors send a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland criticizing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposed new Public Lands Rule to make conservation a designated multiple use which could potentially interfere with existing permitted uses already subject to conservation

conditions. This effort is only going to create more confusion in an already confusing use situation by the general public and permittees. The involvement and vigilance of the mentioned associations is critical to a successful outcome.

NCBA is working on all the issues related to lab created meat including inspection of facilities and product, ingredient labeling and advertising. This is an especially important issue because potential consumers of these lab manufactured, and plant-based products need to know that the most sustainable and environmentally beneficial way to obtain protein from beef is that which comes from an animal which spends most of its life grazing and helping to store and fix carbon to the soil.

Animal welfare continues to be an issue of critical concern for the buying public, especially among younger consumers. NCBA has been a leader in this area with its Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program teaching ranchers and their employees about the benefits of safe and quiet livestock handling techniques and processes.

Along those same lines, in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NCBA has developed and maintained for many years the Environmental Stewardship Award which each year recognizes seven regional award winners from whom a National Award Winner is chosen. These beef cattle operations are examples of many other farms and ranches across the country who demonstrate the great contribution the beef industry makes to a sustainable environment. Sustainability is not just about protecting the environment. For the industry to be sustainable ranches and farms must be financially profitable and protected for future generations. The organizations mentioned above are working every day to make sure that our country is secure in our own food supply and those that create that supply are around for the next generation and beyond.

I would encourage readers to learn more about these organizations and join them if you are not already a member.

I’ll see you soon.

Nevada Farm Bureau

Farm Bill

The farm bill is a critical tool for ensuring our nation’s food supply remains secure. Funding for this package, which could more accurately be called a food and farm bill, includes risk management tools for farmers, access to nutrition for low-income families, conservation programs and investments in agricultural research.

Farm bill programs provide critical tools to help farmers and ranchers manage risk and are written to provide a basic level of protection to help offset bad economic times and severe weather. The 2018 farm bill brought certainty to farm and ranch families through crop insurance, improved risk management programs and support for beginning farmers and ranchers, while also providing much-needed funding for trade development and ag research. The entire package was budget neutral and received strong bipartisan support.

Farming is critical to the well-being of our nation. Few pieces of legislation are more significant than the farm bill. We urge lawmakers to recognize this significance as they update and improving the farm bill.

We support the following principles to guide development of programs in the next farm bill: increase baseline funding commitments to farm programs; maintain a unified farm bill which includes nutrition programs and farm programs together; and prioritize funding for risk management tools which include both federal crop insurance and commodity programs.

The food and farm bill has been a bipartisan effort in the past. The 2023 farm bill presents an important opportunity for lawmakers to rise above partisanship and work together again to pass legislation that protects food security for all Americans and the future success of our farmers and ranchers.

Get the Facts: How Does the Farm Bill Matter for Everyone?

Food Security: America’s public investment in agriculture through farm bill programs helps secure our domestic food supply and keep our country strong while consumers get the benefits of high-quality, affordable food.

Jobs: The food and agriculture industry supports nearly 46.2 million U.S. jobs (that’s more than 14 percent of

U.S. employment) and contributes more than $1 trillion to U.S. gross domestic product.

Conservation: The farm bill’s investment in ag research and conservation programs are critical to ensuring the productivity and sustainability in our farms and domestic food supply.

Risk Management: We all depend on the success of American agriculture so it’s important for America’s farmers and ranchers to be supported by strong farm programs as they face down weather disasters, high supply costs and inflationary pressures. Managing risk is critical to keep food on our tables.

Addressing Hunger: The farm bill includes nutrition programs intended to ensure the most vulnerable among us have access to healthy, affordable food.

Farmers and ranchers have a golden opportunity to stress the importance of farm policy with their state and federal lawmakers, as well as the public. Many people are unaware of the benefits of the farm bill, and few are better-positioned than farmers and ranchers to provide a firsthand account.

LAST SHOWS of the

HIGH DESERT GRANGE SHOWS

October 7

Old Timers & PeeWee

Goat & Sheep Show, Fallon

*Adults & Youth Ages 3-8 only*

High Desert Grange Chapter #22

P.O. Box 5272 Fallon NV 89406

775.427.8210

highdesertgrange22@gmail.com

highdesertgrange22

www.grange.org/highdesertnv22

BATTLE BORN STOCKTON WELL GRANGE SHOWS

October 15

Spooktacular Horse Show

Battle Born Stockton Well Grange #29

P.O. Box 302 Silver Springs NV 89429

battlebornstocktonwellgrange29@gmail.com

BattleBornStocktonWell www.grange.org/battlebornstocktonwellnv29

WVM Headquarters

Consignment Deadline: Oct 18, 2023

Internet Sale

Tues • Dec 5, 2023

Silver Legacy • Reno, NV

Consignment Deadline: Nov 16, 2023

Internet Sale and DISH Network Sale

Being active in the legislative process, when a proposal is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, is a strenuous but exhilarating task. Equally rewarding, however, are the instances when community participants work together to prevent ill-affecting proposals from being passed.

The importance of such measures was driven home recently when the news highlighted the success of a lawsuit in Montana by a group of young environmental activists who sued based on a provision in their state’s constitution which establishes environmental quality as a human right. The plaintiffs in the case range in age from 5 to 22.

One of the news accounts that I read about the Montana case said that it marks the first time a court in the U.S. has declared that a government has a constitutional duty to protect people from climate change. Part of the reason for that “constitutional duty” is the language that was inserted into Montana’s Constitution in 1972.

Article II – Section 3 of the Montana Constitution reads…

“Inalienable Rights | Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment and the rights of pursuing life's necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. In enjoying these rights, all persons recognize corresponding responsibilities.”

During the 2023 Nevada Legislative Session, A.J.R. 3 was proposed and submitted to the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. A.J.R. 3 was proposed to add a new section to the Nevada Constitution. It would have been designated as Section 25 and would have been added to Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution.

There Too, But For…

By Doug Busselman | NFB Executive Vice President

A.J.R. 3 offered that “Each person has an inherent, inalienable, indefeasible and self-executing right to a clean and healthy environment…” The point was that these “inherent, inalienable, etc. rights” included pure water, clean air, healthy ecosystems and a stable climate as well as the preservation of the natural, cultural, scenic and healthful qualities of the environment.

In subsection 3 of this proposed addition to the Nevada Constitution the State of Nevada…each branch of State Government…every agency and political subdivision would have equitably protected these rights for all people and done so as a trust obligation of the State.

Subsection 4 of the proposed enhancement of the Nevada Constitution directed, “The State shall take no action that would cause unreasonable degradation, diminution or depletion of the environment, through direct state action, or inaction, or through the actions of others.”

A.J.R. 3 received a March 9th hearing by the Assembly Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. Fortunately, for this session of the Nevada Legislature the proposal didn’t receive any further committee action and on April 15th the deadline passed with the Legislature’s Joint Standing Rule 14.3.1 taking effect, halting any further action on A.J.R. 3.

Because the 80th session of the Nevada Legislature didn’t act on the concepts provided for in A.J.R. 3 doesn’t mean that we should consider this the end of the matter.

There are several states, (Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts and Montana) which have constitutional and environment protections along the lines of the “The Green Amendment.”

Reviewing the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators’ background website on the Green Amendment, we were able to locate a specific fact sheet on the details associated with

what the amendment is and where it is being considered for advancement. This document indicated that at least six states were considering advancing a green amendment.

In our conversation with colleagues across the country we learned that the New Mexico Legislature dealt with a proposal along the lines of the Green Amendment for their third session in a row.

Not only do supporters of this idea see the opportunities for their agenda on Climate Change, but also the clear steppingstone it offers for environmental justice.

A fact sheet by the organization “For the Generations” notes…

“A Green Amendment provides a way to embed in a state Constitution principles that ensure environmental justice is a substantive obligation of government, not merely an aspirational goal, an obligation focused primarily on process, or an inequity only corrected through policy initiatives. A Green Amendment creates the constitutional mandate that each person, regardless of who they are or where they live, has a right to clean water, clean air, a stable climate and a clean and healthy environment.”

The push for requiring government to control people’s lives through limitations and restrictions is not letting up and has been a key component of many movements over the course of history. Climate change, environmental justice, etc. are just more of the same ilk, offering the notion that government can protect people if only the people comply with the orders they are given.

The late U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.” That level of authority is embodied in the concepts covered in the Green Amendment and Nevada’s caseA.J.R. 3.

A far more effective and appropriate approach than the forced compliance in responding to the concerns over greenhouse gas emissions or other factors that are included in the theory of Climate Change, are those ideas being worked on by the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance (FACA). This 80-plus member coalition includes not only agriculturally-oriented organizations like Farm Bureau, but also environmental organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Nature Conservancy (to name a couple).

The principles that FACA are applying to their solution-oriented objectives include being united in support of federal climate policies that:

• Are voluntary, market- and incentivebased;

• Advance science-based outcomes;

• Promote resilience and help rural economies better adapt to climate change;

• Ensure equitable opportunities for all farmers, ranchers, and forest owners, including historically underserved and small producers; and

• Are strongly bipartisan.

The Green Amendment and possible revisiting A.J.R. 3 in Nevada are not out of the possibilities which will need attention going forward.

Activist organizations and activist judges not only advance their agendas through the type of action we saw come from the Montana court room, but legislators who believe that government can force us to the Utopia that they envision will keep offering their proposals.

As we reflect on A.J.R. 3 from the 2023 Nevada Legislature and compare the immediate outcome of the Montana legal decision we can only remark -“There too, but for…”

By Brittney Money | Director of Communications

We are excited to announce the 104th Nevada Farm Bureau Annual Meeting will take place in Mesquite, Nevada at the CasaBlanca Resort and Casino November 9th through the 11th. We invite all members to join us for a meeting that connects members from around the state.

Mesquite Here We Come Endangered Species Act: 50 Years In, Overdue for Modernization

By Zippy Duvall | President

If you haven’t had a chance to attend one of our annual meetings, we encourage you to attend. We have wide variety of events planned to interest everyone from Young Farmers and Ranchers (YF&R), Women’s Leadership and a wide range of breakout sessions that will benefit your future.

Another primary purpose of the annual meeting is working on Farm Bureau policy recommendations, deletions and or amendments. This will be especially important coming off a legislative year.

The Nevada Farm Bureau Women’s Leadership Committee will be sponsoring a silent auction to raise money for agriculture promotion and education. County Farm Bureaus are encouraged to donate items for the silent auction. All proceeds go to the Women’s Leadership Committee, Young Farmers and Ranchers and the Heritage Foundation.

Remember you can always find the latest information on this year’s Annual Meeting by visiting the Nevada Farm Bureau website at nvfb.org under the events section, or by following us on social media. Registration will open in October so check back then for more info.

We hope you can join us for this great event, and we hope to see you there.

“Do right by the land and it will do right by you.” That’s advice my father gave me as a young farmer. They are words farmers everywhere live by. We put our heart and soul into caring for our land and our animals—and the wildlife that makes its home on and near our land. As we like to say, farmers are the original conservationists, and we take that role seriously. We know what works—and what doesn’t. And 50 years in, we’re seeing more and more of what doesn’t work with the Endangered Species Act.

Protecting wildlife and preserving natural habitats are worthy and important goals. But with a recovery rate of only 3% in the last half century, the ESA isn’t achieving those goals. It’s time for modernization that not only reduces red tape but also makes it easier for farmers and ranchers to be partners in voluntary conservation efforts.

Conservation practices are a normal part of farm life. Across the U.S. today, farmers have voluntarily set aside 140 million acres in conservation practices. That’s an area the size of New York and California combined, where we are providing habitat for wildlife across the country. We’re also working carefully to ensure that our productive farmland is safe for all. Technology today allows us to be precise with our pesticide application, using only what is needed, where it’s needed. That means our crops flourish, and the soil, water and surrounding areas are healthy.

The ESA is not working—plain and simple. It’s not working for the hardworking Americans caring for the land and wildlife.

In fact, our modern agricultural practices often enhance habitat and in turn, attract wildlife to our property. Many farmers take an active role in these efforts to enhance wildlife habitat, from planting milkweed along the Monarch butterfly migration route to using rice fields as waterways to support migratory birds. Unfortunately, the ESA does little to encourage these efforts, but instead adds prohibitive costs and regulatory red tape once a listing is in effect.

It’s also critical to recognize when a species is threatened by a disease or condition that is beyond anything a farmer or landowner can do anything about. For example, the Northern Long-Eared bat is threatened not by anything external, but by a disease that is spreading within colonies and its cave-like habitats. Placing added restrictions on farmers and other landowners will do nothing to stop the spread of the actual disease threatening this species.

Finally, we need certainty when it comes to listings and regulatory decisions. The ESA in its current form is driven by litigation and has seen an increase in listings by more than 300% from 2010 to 2020. Rules on implementing the ESA bounce back and forth with changes in Administrations and litigation. This makes for an ever-shifting landscape, leaving farmers and ranchers guessing from one season to the next. It can make it difficult, sometimes impossible, to make long-term plans. For example, the gray wolf population has recovered according to the ESA standard of best scientific and commercial data available and was delisted in 2020. But as a result of litigation, a court put this recovered species back on the list.

The ESA is not working—plain and simple. It’s not working for the hardworking Americans caring for the land and wildlife. And it’s not working for the species it’s intended to recover. If something is broken, you fix it. Fifty years is more than enough time to see that the ESA is long overdue for a fix.

2021 EPA Emissions Inventory Demonstrates Agriculture’s Continuing Advancements in Sustainability

By Daniel Munch, Economist | www.fb.org/market-intel/2021-epa-emissions-inventory-demonstrates-agricultures-continuing-advancements-in-sustainability

The Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks has been published annually by the Environmental Protection Agency since 1990. It provides an annual estimate of all manmade greenhouse gas emissions sources in the U.S. as well as estimates of the amount of carbon trapped in forest and vegetation soil. This report is submitted to the United Nations as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reporting guidelines on annual inventories, which is part of a global standardized process for reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Previous Market Intel articles have reviewed the emissions for 2017 (Agriculture and Greenhouse Gas Emissions), 2018 (Agriculture’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks), 2019 (Previewing 2019 Agricultural Emissions) and 2020 (2020 EPA Emissions Inventory Demonstrates Agriculture’s Advancements in Sustainability), as well as trends in carbon sequestration (Reviewing U.S. Carbon Sequestration).

Once again, U.S. agriculture represents just 10% of total U.S. emissions when compared to other economic sectors. Overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased from 2020 to 2021 by 5.2%, though agricultural emissions dropped 0.2%. The likely cause of this year-over-year increase is the return of economic activity after a portion of initial COVID-19 lockdowns were lifted. With the slow return of food service, entertainment and travel came the emissions associated with those activities. Agricultural production remained vital throughout the COVID-19 disruptions and lockdowns as the world still required food.

The report emphasizes how voluntary, market- and incentive-based conservation practices help farmers and ranchers access finances for the research and technology needed to continue to take care of their natural resources.

Today's article provides an overview of 2021 emissions as detailed in EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021 report, which was published on April 13. It is important to note, each year EPA updates the methodologies used for their

estimations and retroactively applies this updated methodology to all years since 1990. This means that data in this iteration of the report is not necessarily comparable to the values reported last year.

2021 Emissions and Sinks

In 2021, EPA reports that the total U.S. emissions from all man-made sources was 6.3 billion metric tons in CO2 equivalents, which is an increase of 314 million metric tons compared to 2020 when U.S. emissions totaled 6 billion metric tons in CO2 equivalents. Land use, land-use changes and forestry (LULUC) trapped 754 million metric tons of carbon in the soils, representing 11.8% of total U.S. emissions. 2021 net emissions, which combine total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions with the sequestered greenhouse gas emissions, totaled 5.6 billion metric tons, up 6.4% from 2020. Again, this increase is likely linked to the rebound of economic activity after initial COVID-19 economic disruptions.

The largest emissions source was the transportation sector, representing 28% of total emissions and totaling 1.8 billion metric tons. Transportation emissions increased 11%, or 179 million metric tons, from the prior year, largely a result of the return of travel after many pandemic restrictions were lifted. Following transportation, electricity generation represented 25% of total emissions at 1.6 billion metric tons. Emissions from the electric power industry were up 6.9% from 2020 after a 10.2% reduction compared to 2019. Similar to the transportation sector, an increase in economic activity after initial COVID-19 lockdowns contributed to increased demand for electrical generation for things like manufacturing and heating and cooling of re-opened facilities. The industrial sector, which includes the production of iron and steel, as well as other input materials like cement, represented over 23% of all emissions at 1.5 billion metric tons. Emissions from the industrial sector increased 1.5% compared to 2020. The commercial and residential sectors and U.S. territories represented 12.7% of all U.S. emissions, increasing 1.5% compared to 2020, again linked to the return of increased economic

activity. U.S. territory emissions, including emissions from American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands, make up only 0.4% of total emissions.

Agricultural Emissions in 2021

By EPA’s own methodology, emissions from agriculture totaled 636 million metric tons in CO2 equivalents, or 10.02% of all U.S. emissions, during 2021. This represents a decrease of 0.2%, or 1.43 million metric tons, from 2020. This follows a 2.7%, or 18-million-metric-ton, drop between 2019 and 2020 and a 2.2%, or 15-million-metric-ton, drop between 2018 and 2019. EPA further categorizes agricultural emissions by crop cultivation, livestock and fuel combustion. In 2021, crop cultivation emissions totaled 319 million metric tons, up 1%, or 2.89 million metric tons, from 2020 and just over 5% of total emissions. At 4.4% of total emissions, livestock emissions were 278 million metric tons, down 1%, or 2 million metric tons, from 2020. Fuel combustion utilized by the agricultural sector contributed 38 million metric tons in 2021, down 2.2 million metric tons, or 6%, from 2020, a mere 0.6% of total emissions.

For livestock categories specifically, enteric emissions from beef cattle sit at 2.19% of total U.S. emissions, or 139 million metric tons of the 6.34 billion metric ton total. This is a 1%, or 1.31-million-metricton, decline from 2020. Dairy cattle contributed only an additional 0.77% to total emissions or 49 million metric tons – a marginal 290,000-metric-ton increase from 2020. Swine, sheep and horses were a mere 0.05%, 0.02% and 0.02% of the total, respectively.

EPA also estimates agricultural emissions using a second methodology consistent with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. By this measure, U.S. agricultural emissions for 2021 totaled 598 million metric tons, up 0.1%, or 830,000 metric tons, from 2020, representing 9.4% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This methodology breaks down agriculture into additional categories not considered in the base methodology. In this data set, the largest source of U.S. agricultural emissions was agricultural soil management, e.g.,

fertilizer applications or tillage practices, at 294 million metric tons, a 3.5-millionmetric-ton, or 1%, increase. Agricultural soil management represents approximately 50% of all agricultural emissions, but only 4.6% of total U.S. emissions.

Following agricultural soil management, livestock-related emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management contributed 195 million metric tons and 83 million metric tons, respectively, to total U.S. emissions. These two emission sources represented 46% of agricultural emissions, but only 4.4% of total U.S. emissions. Other agricultural emissions sources include methane from rice cultivation at 17 million metric tons, CO2 from urea fertilization at 5.2 million metric tons, CO2 from liming at 3 million metric tons, and CO2 from field burning at 0.6 million metric tons. Combined, these remaining categories represented less than 5% of agricultural emissions and 0.4% of U.S. emissions.

Ag Productivity and Emission Trends

A comparison of 2021 emissions to 1990 emissions shows U.S. agricultural emissions have increased by 7%. However, that’s not the full story. Productivity is increasing, as it must to help feed a growing global population, while emissions are on the decline relative to this productivity and population increase. Innovation and advancements in technology have allowed farmers and ranchers to increase their productivity while using the same amount of inputs. Compared to 1948, farmers and ranchers are producing 2.78 times more in output per unit of input they use, according to USDA-Economic Research Service’s estimations of farm output, input and total factor productivity (Agricultural Productivity in the U.S.). Even more impressive, productivity is rising while cropland is declining – by 30 million acres over the last three decades. This means that farmers and ranchers continue to produce more using fewer resources and the additional decrease in agricultural emissions shows that voluntary, marketbased incentives are helping farmers and ranchers accomplish this milestone.

For agriculture, production of food is important not just for farmers and ranchers,

but also for the millions of families in the U.S. and around the world that U.S. agriculture feeds. Agriculture has been remarkable at sustainable intensification through productivity gains, in addition to adding practices that further shrink its environmental footprint. These improvements have been in crop yields and animal nutrition and breeding. Such productivity growth and the agricultural research that drives it are critical to the sustainability of agriculture’s contribution the world’s food, clothing and energy needs.

For instance, consider two examples: milk production and red meat production, which includes cattle, swine and sheep raised for meat. Since 1990, U.S. dairy farmers have increased milk output by 53%, going from 148 billion pounds to 226 billion pounds as global demand for products like cheese, butter and dairy powders rises with a growing world economy. During this same timeframe, enteric fermentation from dairy cattle per billion pounds of milk produced has dropped 26%, from 293 million metric tons to 217 million metric tons per billion pounds of milk produced. Similarly, global demand for red meat products continues to rise and farmers have met the challenge in a more efficient manner. In 1990, U.S. farmers produced 39 billion pounds of red meat; this grew

44% to 55 billion pounds in 2021. In the same timeframe, enteric fermentation from beef cattle dropped 28%, from 3.5 million metric tons to 2.5 million metric tons per billion pounds produced. This shows how livestock producers have embraced technological innovation and production practices that increase output while reducing associated emissions. Not only have producers focused on improvements to production and sustainability, but they have also focused on feeding more families, in the U.S. and globally. Since 1990, U.S. agricultural emissions have increased by 7%, but the U.S. population has increased 33% in that same period of time, adding over 83 million people in three decades. This means U.S. agriculture has been called upon to feed more people than ever before. With the advancements in innovation and technology, agricultural emissions per capita have declined 20% since 1990. Adjusting for productivity gains within the sector, the 7% increase in agricultural emissions drops to an 18% decline since 1990 (latest available productivity data is 2019).

Summary and Policy Conclusions

During 2021, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from all man-made sources totaled 6.3 billion metric tons in CO2 equivalents, an increase of 5.2% from

2020, largely due to the return of commerce after a COVID-19-induced slowdown in 2020. When taking into consideration carbon trapped in the soils through forestry, grasslands, wetlands and cropland, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by almost 12% to a net emissions level of 5.6 billion metric tons. Emissions related to agriculture totaled 635 million metric tons during 2021, down a slight 0.2% from the previous year.

Based on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodology, U.S. agricultural emissions totaled 598 million metric tons in 2021, a 6% increase compared to 2020. As a percentage of total U.S. emissions, U.S. agriculture continues to be just 10% of all greenhouse gas emissions, with livestock-related emissions about 3%.

When factoring in productivity and population gains, however, both per unit and per capita agricultural emissions are declining. That means U.S. agriculture is producing more food, fiber and renewable fuel for more people while using fewer resources and emitting fewer greenhouse gases. Additionally, the adoption of conservation practices through voluntary, market-based incentives have helped farmers and ranchers trap 754 million metric tons of carbon in the soil.

With conversations on a new farm bill in full throttle, it is vital that additional investments to assist farmers in further improving efficiency are prioritized. Demand for working lands programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and Conservation Stewardship Program, which have allowed private land to continue in production and have helped to provide cost-share assistance to implement conservation practices, has consistently outpaced the amount of funding authorized by the farm bill. Ensuring that the United States leads in agricultural research that allows farmers and ranchers to be part of cutting-edge plant and animal technologies that increase productivity, capture more carbon in the soil and reduce livestock-related emissions even more, among many other environmental benefits, is also vital. The latest report shows that when agriculture is recognized as a partner in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, farmers and ranchers have more opportunities to utilize voluntary, market-based incentives that work to reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint while helping farmers and ranchers economically produce the food, fiber and renewable fuel U.S. families, and the world, rely on.

Nevada Farm Bureau Submits Comments On Proposed Rule Changes

Three different proposed regulation changes in how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the National Fisheries Service deal with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) were due for public comment on Monday, August 21st. NFB participated in sharing feedback, along with a number of others who were interested in the topic.

For the most part, the proposed changes were intended to reverse the changes that were made under the Trump Administration. It would seem that is the primary regulatory direction being taken by the Biden Administration – whatever the Trump Administration did…needs to be changed back.

One of the proposals put back in place the “blanket 4(d) rule” involving the way that Threatened Species are dealt with. This proposal only dealt with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and actually reestablishes a difference between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Fisheries Service. Nevada Farm Bureau had this to say about that proposed change: https://files.constantcontact. com/ce74815a701/0c2d40a2-5d0646fc-ba6d-d6557653e69d.pdf

The remaining two proposed rule changes involved both of the agencies. One of the proposed regulation changes involved the interagency consultation process (Section 7) that takes place when there is a species listed under the ESA. Either of the two agencies (actually both) need to confer with other federal agencies on how they should carry out their activities in light of the listed species. Nevada Farm Bureau offered these comments ) regarding these proposed changes: https://files.constantcontact.com/ ce74815a701/8a5b2a87-8d2d-4fa4ada1-dbb1419cc7e8.pdf

The additional proposed change of regulations for both of the agencies involves Section 4 of the ESA, with one of the major changes deals with word changes to emphasize that the agencies won’t be including details about the economic impact or other impacts that the listing will have. There are also word-smith changes to identify how “foreseeable future” is defined and details over designating unoccupied habitat that might be plugged

into designated critical habitat. Nevada Farm Bureau’s comments offered these perspectives to those rule changes: https://files.constantcontact.com/ ce74815a701/21731c9a-e249-46df8b82-ede476c10b85.pdf

Reminder Of Wild Horse Debate In Elko – September 7

Last week we highlighted the upcoming debate on Wild Horses and their “management,” which is scheduled for the Elko Convention Center on Thursday evening (6 p.m.), September 7th. The event came about when Senator Ira Hansen had made comments to Nevada’s federal delegation concerning the emergency situation facing Nevada natural resources because of the significant over-population of Wild Horses and Burros that the federal government is supposed to be managing. These comments were followed up with a number of media interviews. Wildhorse Advocate/Attorney Scott Beckstead didn’t agree with Sen Hansen's points, and this prompted him to challenge Sen Hansen to debate the matter.

While We’re On The Topics Of Wild Horses and Federal Agency Management

We’ve become avid, regular readers of the Public Lands Council “Daily Roundup,” a digital daily highlight news blurb of happenings pertaining to natural resources, agriculture and federal lands. This past week we came across an interesting report in that publication sharing the details of an experiment that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was conducting with a new strategy of dealing with Wild Horse contraceptive actions. The account noted that this trial was conducted on the Reveille Herd Management Area that is mostly within the boundaries of Nye County.

The approach, identified as “catch, treat and release,” captured 115 Wild Horses and involved 27 of the mares that were gathered. These 27 mares were treated with an initial birth control vaccine and then were held in captivity for 30 days before receiving a second booster treatment, before being released. It is hoped that through this double treatment program, the mares will be infertile for up to four years.

The news account shared that the Reveille Herd Management Area has about 138 Wild Horses, which is only slightly above the Appropriate Management Level (AML) that is supposed to be on that herd management area. Such a contraceptive plan isn’t going to have any major improvement in seriously over-populated areas, but could keep populations stable in areas which are near or slightly below AML. Congratulations to BLM for trying this method and we’ll keep an eye out for progress reports that come along on similar innovations as Nevada natural resources continue to struggle with massive over-populations of Wild Horses.

Nevada Farm Bureau Policy Development Question On Amending State Constitution

As county Farm Bureau policy development meetings take place it possibly should include a discussion on whether Farm Bureau policy in Nevada should have a position on one of the ballot questions that voters will be responding to in the 2024 election. The ballot question deals with changing the Nevada Constitution to establish an open primary voting process and whether ranked voting should be included as a process for future elections. This ballot question was “Question 3” in the 2022 election and was supported by 53 percent of the voters casting their ballots. Given passage of the proposal in 2022, a majority vote in favor in 2024 would bring about the changes necessary in the Nevada Constitution to institute such an election process.

According to BallotPedia the ballot question before Nevada Voters in November of 2024 will ask…

“Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election in which all voters may then rank the remaining candidates by preference for the offices of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, Attorney General, and State Legislators?”

The change, if adopted, will amend Section 4 of Article 5 and Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution.

NFB policy doesn't currently take a position on this ballot question. Those engaged in this year’s policy development process, at the county FB level as well during the Nevada Farm Bureau Annual Meeting (November 9-11 in Mesquite, NV) need to consider whether our organization should take a position on the question and if so, would we support or oppose passage.

Donations To Assist Maui Residents

In last week’s newsletter we shared update information from Randy Cabral, President of the Hawaii Farm Bureau. In a Zoom meeting a couple of days ago with Brian Miyamoto, Administrator for the Hawaiian Farm Bureau we learned that their Farm Bureau is gratefully using the donations that they receive to assist Farm Bureau members on the island of Maui who are not only needing to deal with the devastation, but also uncertain futures because of their loss of business to sell their production to.

We encourage you to consider donations that you are able to please make your taxdeductible donation to the Hawaii Farm Bureau Foundation (Please include in the Memo section of your check “Maui Wildfire”) and mail to:

Hawaii Farm Bureau Foundation P.O. Box 253 • Kunia, HI 96759

Department of Ag Names New Deputy Administrator

The NDA announced Brittany Mally as the new Division of Food and Nutrition Deputy Administrator. She'll serve alongside Patricia Hoppe, named as the new Division Administrator in May.

Brittany originally started her career at the NDA in 2015 in school nutrition, after which she moved to the Douglas County School District as the Director of School Nutrition programs. Brittany returned to the NDA in 2021 as the School Nutrition supervisor.

Brittany has her BS in Nutrition and Dietetics from the UNM and a Masters of Family and Consumer Sciences in Dietetics from ISU. In her free time, she also serves on the board of the Nevada School Nutrition Association.

The end of summer means peak harvest season for many of our farms in Nevada. Between farmers markets, community supported agriculture (CSA) farm boxes, and U-Pick options right on the farm, there are lots of opportunities to connect with our local farmers and bring home fresh, in-season produce to your kitchen table.

The Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA) can tell you what foods are in season, where to buy them, how to practice good food safety when preparing them, and some recipes to try, all at agri.nv.gov/NVFood.

Now is also the time of year for agritourism events. From county fairs to harvest festivals, there are plenty of options to see the food we’re growing throughout the state.

Enjoy the harvest, - Director Goicoechea

Biosecurity is important to protecting against VSV and other animal diseases

While there are currently no active cases of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus (VSV) in Nevada, proper biosecurity measures are important to mitigating the spread and maintaining a healthy herd. In addition to travel requirements, biosecurity measures are recommended including:

• Do not share equipment, water troughs, feed buckets or salt licks between animals.

• Remove standing water from the premises.

• Remove manure regularly.

• Utilize repellants.

• Move animals away from high insectvector habitats such as rivers, streams, irrigation canals and areas with high vegetation.

• Inspect animals regularly for signs of excessive salivation and lesions.

• If an animal is showing signs of VSV, isolate from other animals and contact your veterinarian.

Learn more at agri.nv.gov/animal_ disease_updates.

Meat now

available at food banks through the Home Feeds Nevada program

Great Western Meats is the newest member of the Home Feeds Nevada program. They recently delivered 20,000 pounds of ground beef to Three Square food bank in Las Vegas. Up north, Brough Ranch delivered 2,500 pounds of ground beef, Ponderosa Meat is delivering approximately 2,000 pounds per month, Oney Land and Cattle are providing approximately 4,000 pounds per month, and Wolf Pack Meats is delivering approximately 20,000 pounds per month to the Food Bank of Northern Nevada. Meat products are typically less available at food banks than other items. These are among the Nevada producers helping to fill this gap. Learn more about the Home Feeds Nevada program at agri.nv.gov/HFN.

Help prevent the spread of noxious weeds when sourcing materials

Choose certified weed-free materials when sourcing mulch, forage and gravel to help prevent the introduction of noxious weeds to new areas. It also limits the chance of your livestock becoming sick from weed species that are poisonous.

Producers are encouraged to certify their products as weed-free. Certified weed-free materials provide products with the added value of helping to maintain weed free landscapes and private property by encouraging good land stewardship and preventing the spread or introduction of noxious weed species. The use of certified materials is an important tool in erosion control and restoration efforts.

Learn more about certified weed-free here: https://agri.nv.gov/weed-free/

Apply to the Foundation Seed Program to diversify production/grow native seed

The NDA Foundation Seed Program provides free native seeds to growers to cultivate for use in future restoration efforts. Fall seed applications are due Sept. 29 @ 5pm. Visit www.rd.usda.gov/ programs-services/business-programs/ meat-and-poultry-processing-expansionprogram#overview | seed@agri.nv.gov

New funding available for meat and poultry processing expansion

The USDA has $123 million in grants available through the Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program to promote a fairer, more competitive and resilient meat and poultry supply chain. Funds can be used to support building, modernizing or expanding processing facilities, meeting packaging and labeling requirements, offsetting costs associated with becoming an inspected facility, and more. Entities that engage or plan to engage in meat and poultry processing, including private, nonprofit, tribal, cooperative, state or local government, among other entities, located within the U.S. are encouraged to apply. Apply by Nov. 22, 2023.

Look out for Emerald Ash Borer – Don’t move firewood

Emerald Ash Borer is an invasive pest that wreaks havoc on ash trees. While we have not confirmed a sighting in Nevada, it has been detected in Oregon. A critical step to help prevent the introduction of this pest is to not move firewood. This means buying firewood where you plan to burn it when planning late summer barbeques and camping trips. For more information visit dontmovefirewood.org and if you think you’ve spotted an Emerald Ash Borer, contact jknight@agri.nv.gov

First prizes awarded through the Nevada Craft Beverage Passport

The first two Nevada Craft Beverage Passports have been completed by Craig and Wendi Smith! After visiting all participating locations, they walked away with two Made in Nevada gift baskets. This means there are only three baskets left for those who visit all locations, but prizes are offered for stamping off 10 or more participating establishments.

Most recently, Jean-Paul Ntetika was awarded a prize while visiting Nevada from the Democratic Republic of Congo through the Mandela Washington Fellowship hosted by the University of Nevada, Reno, Northern Nevada International Center. Jean-Paul is the President and Founder of Tomela Wines and through his fellowship, he was learning about viticulture and

agribusinesses to further his professional and community building goals. He noted that the Nevada Craft Beverage Passport was a great tool to learn about the different Nevada wineries while also learning how the program has helped Nevada businesses promote their products.

Find a passport near you at agri.nv.gov/ passport.

Chad Sestanovich named Division of Animal Industry Administrator

The NDA selected Chad Sestanovich as the new Administrator for the Division of Animal Industry. Administrator Sestanovich comes to the NDA with more than 30 years of experience in different areas of animal industry. He has spent his life working in all aspects of agriculture, including everything from animal disease to livestock identification. Administrator Sestanovich was first involved in the animal industry as a ranch hand on his family’s hay and cattle ranch in Nevada. He spent eight years as a Veterinary Technician, and most recently was assistant ranch manager at Mori Ranches. Administrator Sestanovich will be based in the Elko office and make his home in eastern Nevada with his wife and two daughters.

Brittany Mally named Division Deputy Administrator

The NDA announced Brittany Mally as the new Division of Food and Nutrition Deputy Administrator. Brittany will be leading the Division of Food and Nutrition alongside Patricia Hoppe, who was named as the new Division Administrator in May. Brittany originally started her career at the NDA in 2015 in school nutrition, after which she moved to the Douglas County School District as the Director of School Nutrition programs. Brittany returned to the NDA in 2021 as the School Nutrition supervisor. Brittany has her Bachelor of Science in Nutrition and Dietetics from the University of New Mexico and a Masters of Family and Consumer Sciences in Dietetics from Iowa State University. In her free time, she also serves on the board of the Nevada School Nutrition Association. Learn more/pay fees here: https://agri. nv.gov/Animals/Livestock/About/

THE ROUNDUP

An analysis of western ranching politics brought to you by the PLC

IN THE LATEST NEWS....

Environment: BLM's green push in CO strikes argument over environment and oil.

BLM shifts green on 2 million Western Slope acres, setting up Colorado clash of environment vs oil. The Colorado SunTwo million acres of Colorado’s most scenic Western Slope lands would see stronger protections and less oil and gas leasing under a draft Bureau of Land Management proposal, in what would amount to a large-scale greening of the powerful federal agency.

The BLM’s preferred alternative in a draft supplemental environmental impact statement now up for public comment makes it easier to carve out wilderness and harder to drill on public lands in two districts stretching through Eagle, Pitkin and Mesa counties, and along much of the Colorado River.

At the heart of the BLM’s revised environmental impact statement is a new bureau-preferred alternative for the 1.5 million acres of BLM land, and nearly 2 million acres of federal and private land where BLM controls mineral rights.

Vasquez works with Great Old Broads for Wilderness, a Durangobased advocacy group that fights for protection of wilderness and wild lands through 40 chapters in 17 states across the U.S. Vasquez sat on the BLM’s resource advisory council for Northwest Colorado from 2011 to 2017, working with disparate stakeholders on issues

including fossil fuel development. As it currently stands, the agency’s preferred alternative E could eliminate parcels for leasing that are on no, low and medium potential mineral resource lands, Vasquez said.

“Alternative F adds into that decision process more elements of conservation, including wildlife habitat, riparian corridors and other water resources,” Vasquez added. “So that is why alternative F is so much more complete a toolkit for the BLM to make their decision about whether to lease or not to lease a particular parcel. It empowers the BLM to do what it is charged with in its multi-use mandate.”

Wildlife: WA Fish and Wildlife approve limited wolf take.

WA approves killing of up to two wolves in Asotin County. The Seattle Times - The director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has authorized the killing of up to two wolves in Asotin County.

According to a news release from the department, the authorization is in response to six cattle killed in four separate attacks since May 21 by members of wolf group WA 139. Three of the attacks were confirmed to be from wolves and one was determined to be a probable wolf attack. The group has killed cattle belonging to four different producers and, according to the department, each of the producers implemented proactive, nonlethal deterrent methods such as range riding, removing dead cattle so they don’t attract wolves, and the use of bright, motion-activated lights designed to scare wolves.

Under the state’s wolf management plan, lethal control of wolves can be considered after four confirmed depredation events within a 10-month period and after nonlethal methods have proved unsuccessful. The lethal removal authority will expire when one or two wolves in WA Group 139 territory have been killed or after Sept. 6. The authorization was announced Wednesday, the same day the department revealed that the WFWC will consider rule-making petitions submitted by groups and citizens.

One of the petitions, submitted by a coalition of environmental and animal rights groups, asks the commission to consider changing state code governing lethal control of wolves. Among other changes, it would only allow lethal control after three confirmed attacks by wolves on livestock, two of which must be fatal, within a 30-day period. It would require that two nonlethal control methods be in places before lethal control can be considered. The new rule would forbid lethal control on public land and forbid killing wolves that attack livestock if the attack happens close to “core wolf areas, including dens and rendezvous sites.”

Sheep Industry:

University of ID & USDA partner on new sheep genetic research; ID sheep producers face steep market challenges.

U of I, USDA collaborate on sheep genetic research. Intermountain Farm & Ranch - Scientists with University of Idaho and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have collaborated on genetic research to help sheep ranchers improve sheep longevity and better utilize their flocks in targeted grazing to benefit rangeland health. The ewe longevity and herbivory studies are among several collaborative research projects involving U of I and USDA researchers in Dubois aimed at helping the sheep industry improve environmental stewardship, profitability and productivity, as well as aiding land management agencies with mitigating rangeland risks from invasive weeds, climate change and catastrophic wildfire.

“Rangeland managers, including ranchers and government agencies, desperately need effective tools to manage vegetation at a landscape scale,” Taylor said. “If we can better understand and better predict the types of plants sheep will consume, as well as determine the heritability of herbivory preference, we could develop sheep flocks with specific grazing traits, which can be used to manipulate vegetation at a landscape scale towards important rangeland management goals.”

Idaho sheep operations in danger of extinction from low prices, foreign imports, and monopolies. Idaho Capital Sun - This year, two of Idaho’s large sheep ranchers question whether they can survive much longer.

Low prices for lamb in 2022 were way below the cost of production, while about 70 percent of the lamb sold in the United States from domestic meatpackers came from Australia. But most consumers have no idea how tough the declining sheep market has been on producers.

The R-CALF petition details how the domestic lamb industry has been in severe decline over the last 20 years, while market share by Australia and New Zealand has increased.

“Since the time the U.S. entered its first major free trade agreement – the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement – lamb and mutton imports have increased over 543 percent in quantity and 2,363 percent in value,” the petition cover letter says.

“These imports have displaced domestic lamb and mutton production, which has declined 60% during this period. Other large Idaho sheep producers are pushing the American Sheep Industry Association board to take action on foreign imports and lamb pricing. John Noh, owner of Noh Sheep Company in Kimberly, is on its board of directors.

“From our perspective, we could get a longer-term fix if we can convince the World Trade Organization (WTO) to implement quotas and protect our industry,” Noh says. “Even in the last 2-3 years, the imports have gone from 45-50 percent of the U.S. market, to now, close to 70 percent. We can’t compete with that.”

Other issues that affect Idaho sheep producers include a steep rise in the cost of production, fueled by inflation in the last two years. Hay and fuel prices in particular cut into a rancher’s bottom line. Labor costs also have gone up, officials said.

A MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

"Tours are an important tool to help educate agency officials and diverse stakeholders on a myriad of issues that impact California cattle producers."

The Cattle Council had the opportunity to focus on ranchers grazing federal lands this month by sponsoring a tour of the Stanislaus National Forest with ranchers, forest service officials, local elected representatives, and other interested stakeholders to discuss the beneficial impacts of grazing ten years after the RIM Fire.

The RIM fire occurred almost to this day ten years ago, burning 257,314 acres in the Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park. Years of reduced grazing and logging in the forest resulted in a wildfire that was extremely intense and destructive. In 2014, a year after the fire, a debate swirled about whether grazing should return to forest areas that had burned. Although in reduced numbers, grazing did return to the forest in 2014.

On August 9, participants were taken on a full-day tour of the burned areas to learn about the long-term impacts of the RIM Fire and the importance of employing grazing and logging in order to reduce the severity of future fires and, more importantly, to control brush and other invasive species that tend to overtake meadows and pastures after a destructive fire. The tour included a series of panel discussions spread out over multiple stops and ended with a group discussion facilitated by retired USFS Deputy Chief Barnie Gyant. The Council would like to thank the Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources & Environment (TuCARE) and the number of volunteers who worked diligently to put together the program and facilitate the tour. A full write-up of the event will be featured in a future edition of the California Cattlemen. Tours are an important tool to help educate agency officials and diverse stakeholders on a myriad of issues that impact California cattle producers. Don’t forget the Cattle Council works to help ranchers and dairy farmers to facilitate and pay for these events to help highlight and bring change to local or regional issues. If your organization is interested in working with the Cattle Council, don’t hesitate to reach out to me or any of our producer board members.

CALRESILIENT CAMPAIGN CONTINUES

If you live in the Sacramento region or Northern California and watch KCRA Channel 3, there is a good chance you’ve seen the latest TV commercial sponsored by the California Cattle Council. The third advertisement of our CalResilient campaign is focused on the nutritional impact California dairy farmers and ranchers are making. In addition to the TV campaign, we launched a digital campaign that compliments and reinforces what we are doing on TV. For digital advertisements, we have the ability to specifically target certain audiences that need to see and hear our messages. If you see any of our advertisements on social media, we encourage you to share them with your friends and family. Visit calcattlecouncil.org to learn more and to view the commercials.

CHAIRMAN FEATURED ON NPR INSIGHT

Cody Nicholson Stratton, Chairman of the California Cattle Council, was on NPR Insight where he talked about the cattle industry and climate change, touching on how the industry has changed over the years and the challenges it still faces. Nicholson Stratton also discussed why the Council launched an educational campaign that paints the cattle industry as a positive resource in the fight against drought, wildfires, and extreme climate change. Listen: www.capradio.org/news/ insight/2023/08/09/former-uc-davis-student-charged-in-deadly-stabbingsheads-to-state-hospital-how-cattle-industry-is-evolving-with-climate-change/

CATCH UP ON CA CATTLE COUNTRY STORIES

The Stories from California Cattle Country podcast introduce us to cattle families with unique, notable stories and experiences.

Episode 23 took us to Humboldt County, where we met rancher Peter Bussman. Episode 24 took us to Sierra County, where we met rancher Tim Curran, who owns and operates Circle Ranch based in Ione. Episode 25 introduced us to Rita McPhee from the McPhee Red Angus ranch in Lodi, California. Episode 26 took us to Sloughhouse, where we had the pleasure of meeting first-generation ranchers Bart and Noelle Cremers. Episode 27 took us to La Grange, where we met ranchers Sherri and Bob Brennan. Episode 28 introduced us to the next generation of agriculturalists at the Mid-State Fair in Paso Robles.

To listen and learn about each episode, visit https://calcattlecouncil.org/storiesfrom-california-cattle-country/ (or visit the front page of calcattlecouncil.org) Get a behind-the-scenes look at the podcast on Instagram @CalCattleCountry.

Justin Oldfield

Cattle Council Board Members Sherri Brennan & Shelia Bowen with Council Executive Director Justin Oldfield and local rancher Bob Brennan.

NEWS RELEASE

Recently, I have been spending a lot of time in the House Appropriations Committee room, working with my colleagues to mark up the appropriations bills that will fund our government for Fiscal Year 2024, which begins on October 1st. For those of you unfamiliar with this process, let me give a little recap.

Every year, Congress must pass twelve appropriations bills to keep the government funded for the next fiscal year. These bills begin in each of the twelve Appropriations Subcommittees, and then head to the full committee for a mark up, where the Members of the committee debate and amend the bill and determine whether it should be recommended to the House Floor for a vote.

The House and Senate each have their own process, and eventually the House and Senate versions are merged into one bill through the conference process, before heading to the President’s desk for signature.

So far, the full House Appropriations Committee has approved eight of the twelve appropriations bills, including the Legislative Branch bill that I oversaw. My Republican colleagues on the committee are focused on passing appropriations bills that rein in wasteful spending while ensuring our nation is safe and secure.

Each of the eight bills passed out of the House Appropriations Committee thus far contain major wins, which I will detail in this newsletter.

HONORING OUR NATION'S HEROES

The first bill passed out of the House Appropriations Committee was the FY24 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill,

which prioritizes our nation’s heroes and honors their sacrifices. Here are a few of the wins included in this bill:

· Fully funds veterans’ health care programs.

· Fully funds veterans’ benefits and VA programs.

· Provides care to veterans who were exposed to toxic substances during their service.

· Provides almost $800 million above the President’s budget request for military construction and family housing.

As an Army veteran, and father of a Navy veteran, I am proud to ensure that our veterans get the medical treatment and benefits they deserve.

SUPPORTING OUR FOOD PRODUCERS

The next bill passed out of the House Appropriations Committee was the FY24 Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations bill, which includes funding to support our farmers and ranchers, rural communities, and food security. Here are a few of the wins included in this bill:

· Reins in harmful regulations that dictate how poultry and livestock producers raise and market their animals.

· Provides sufficient funds to ensure the safety of food, drugs, and medical devices.

· Prevents the purchase of agricultural land by foreign adversaries.

· Repurposes billions of dollars from Democrats’ partisan bills to assist America’s producers and rural communities.

Communist China currently owns over 380,000 acres of American farmland.

America cannot give China more control of our food supply, which is why I was especially proud to support the provision that will prevent adversaries like China from purchasing agricultural land.

SECURING THE BORDER

Up next was the FY24 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which provides funding to the Department of Homeland Security to secure our border, remove dangerous criminals, and bolster our national security. Here are a few of the biggest wins included in the bill:

· Includes funding for 22,000 more Border Patrol agents.

· Secures funding for the border wall and ensures funding for the wall is utilized.

· Increases the number of ICE detention beds to 41,500 to help end the Biden Administration’s catch and release policy.

· Prohibits paroled or otherwise inadmissible illegal aliens from being transferred into the interior of the country.

A big part of our job on the Appropriations Committee is to provide the resources required to keep our nation safe. The Biden Administration’s crisis at the southern border has continued for far too long, so I was proud to support this bill that invests in resources and strategies to secure the border and prevent migrants from illegally crossing into this country.

IMPROVING CONGRESS' EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS

As the Chairman of the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I led the committee

mark up and passage of the FY24 Legislative Branch bill. This bill ensures that Congress remains open and working for the American people. Here are a few of the most standout provisions:

· Increases funding for recruiting, training, and retaining Capitol Police officers.

· Ensures adequate resources for Members to effectively serve their constituents.

· Maintains funding for committees of the House of Representatives, so they can hold the Biden Administration accountable by conducting vigorous oversight of the Executive Branch.

As we hear more and more about the alleged abuses of power committed by President Biden and his family, it has become more important than ever that the House of Representatives have the ability to keep a close eye on the actions of this Administration.

MAINTAINING A STRONG NATIONAL DEFENSE

House Appropriators then met to consider the FY24 Defense bill, which also passed through committee. This bill funds agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community, including the Military Services, Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Here are a few highlights:

· Ensures service members and their families have the support they need by funding a 5.2% pay raise for our service members.

· Counters Communist China by including funding for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which bolsters U.S. military capabilities in the IndoPacific region.

· Innovates and modernizes the military by investing in next-generation fighter aircrafts, helicopters, tactical combat vehicles, and submarines.

· Enhances the DoD’s role in stopping illicit drugs from entering the country by increasing funding for train and equip programs to counter fentanyl and synthetic opioids and the transnational criminal organizations that contribute to the fentanyl crisis. We are living in an increasingly dangerous world. China is rapidly modernizing, Russia is waging its war in Ukraine, and countries like Iran and North Korea continue their pursuit of long-range ballistic missiles. That’s why I was proud to pass a bill that sends a clear message to our adversaries that the U.S. military will have the tools it needs to win any fight!

PRIORITIZING ENERGY SECURITY

The House Appropriations Committee passed the FY24 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies bill, which makes historic investments to secure our energy independence and modernize water infrastructure projects nationwide. Here are a few key provisions:

· Provides funds for the production of critical minerals.

· Prohibits oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be sold to any entity owned by or under the control of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or any other entity that intends to export to China.

· Invests in construction, operation, and maintenance of our nation’s ports and inland waterways to ensure goods can be moved safely to and from global markets.

As I’ve said before, our nation is blessed with an abundance of natural resources that can help meet our energy needs. Nevada, for example, is poised to serve our nation by delivering the lithium necessary for renewable energies, so I’m especially excited that this bill provides funding to responsibly develop these critical minerals.

COUNTERING CHINESE AGGRESSION

Last week, we passed the FY24 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs bill. This bill provides funds

for the Department of State and American foreign policy programs around the world. Here are some major provisions included in this bill:

· Grants unwavering support for Israel and other key allies in the Middle East, such as Egypt and Jordan.

· Counters China’s malign influence by providing funding to promote our national security interests in the Indo-Pacific region.

· Provides funding for Taiwan to defend itself from China’s threats and aggression.

At a time when adversaries like China are becoming more aggressive, we must continue to support our national security interests and allies across the globe. This bill will help do just that.

SUPPORTING AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESSES

And finally, we passed the FY24 Financial Services and General Government bill, which funds a wide swath of federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Treasury. Here are the top wins included in this bill:

· Prevents the IRS from hiring tens of thousands of new agents.

· Protects American small businesses by prohibiting funding for expensive and heavy-handed regulations at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

· Prohibits dozens of costly regulatory actions and ensures agencies remain focused on their core federal functions.

The last thing American families and businesses need right now are more audits from the IRS, so I was especially pleased that this bill would prevent the IRS from hiring more agents.

LOOKING AHEAD

We still have four more bills to pass out of the House Appropriations Committee and all twelve must be passed by the full House, so we have a long way to go before the September 30th deadline.

Even though we have a lot of work ahead of us, I am excited and proud of the wins we’ve secured so far. Keep an eye out for my next newsletter to learn more about the other four appropriations bills.

Creeks and Communities: A Continuing Strategy for Accelerating Cooperative Riparian Stewardship 2023 Trainings

Riparian proper functioning condition (PFC) assessment uses common terms, definitions, and methods to identify opportunities for positive change from reasonable investments, enhance local management, and solve problems by people most affected. Integrated Riparian Management uses PFC assessment to prioritize needs for adaptive management with monitoring for riparian objectives and strategies. Trainings are available to landowners, Federal, State, and local agency personnel, tribes, industry, conservation interests, and others. Instructors are from Nevada Creeks and Communities Team. There is no cost for classes.

PFC Assessment for Integrated Riparian Management

September 18-20, Elko, NV. Ramada 340 Commercial St Request a reservation

You are welcome for the parts of the class you need or want Day-1 | 8:00 Registration, 8:15 AM start

Inside or Zoom for PFC instruction

Day-2 | 8:00 AM start

Outside or Zoom for PFC Assessments

Day-3 | 8:00 AM start

Inside or Zoom for Integrated Riparian Mgmt

Day-3 | PM and Day 4 – Outside or Zoom for assessing additional riparian areas. Zoom class will feature optional participant-provided case studies - PFC assessments or integrated riparian management assessment, priorities, objectives, management, monitoring, or adapting management for specific locations

Cottonwood Ranch Riparian/Creek Workshop

How to See a Creek, Tools for Improving Creek Functions, and Creating Your Story show the improvements made)

September 12 & 13, Cottonwood Guest Ranch, HC 62 Box 1300, O'Neil Route, Wells, Nevada, www.cottonwoodguestranch. com Reservations for lodge, meals or camping & Questions: (775) 472-0222

PFC Assessment and/or Integrated Riparian Management

Coaching field sessions are available for small groups such as ID or collaborative teams.

For PFC class signup or questions, contact: Sherman Swanson, 775-233-6221, swanson@unr.edu with name, affiliation, address, phone, email, interest, discipline, role or area of expertise.

For reference materials go to:

www.tinyurl.com/NevadaBox AND www.blm.gov/learn/blmlibrary/agency-publications/technical-references - scroll down and expand the riparian area management section.

The Martin Fire: Then and Now

By Charlie D. Clements, Mark Freese, Caleb McAdoo and Dan Harmon

Historically, wildfires in the northern Great Basin big sagebrush plant communities experienced wildfire intervals of every 60-110 years and mostly occurred in the late summer after the perennial grasses had flowered and dried out. The accidental introduction of cheatgrass and its subsequent invasion onto millions of acres of Great Basin rangelands has increased this wildfire interval to as little as 5-10 years as reported.

When habitats are threatened by this frequency of wildfires, critical wildlife habitats and sustainable grazing practices are severely threatened as well. Aldo Leopold, in 1949 recognized this problem and how impossible it is going to be to protect wildlife habitat from cheatgrass fueled wildfires.

The accidental introduction and subsequent invasion of cheatgrass indeed contributed significantly to the transformation of millions of acres of wildlife habitats throughout the West, especially shrub obligated species such as sage grouse and mule deer. Cheatgrass outcompetes native plant seedlings for limited moisture and nutrients resulting in less perennial species recruitment and more cheatgrass which provides a fine-textured, early maturing fuel that increases the chance, rate, spread and season of wildfire.

With each passing wildfire season more and more critical shrub communities are burned and converted to cheatgrass dominance. When cheatgrass invades, the likelihood of wildfires permanently removing crucial forage and cover (e.g. sagebrush, bitterbrush)

for wildlife follows. This scenario has played out all across the Intermountain West, which now is experiencing larger and more frequent wildfires at alarming rates.

An excellent example of such catastrophic wildfires is the 2018 Martin Fire that burned 435,000 acres of rangelands significantly impacting grazing and wildlife resources as well as threatening life and destroying property and rangeland infrastructure (Fig. 1).

To date, the Martin Fire is the largest recorded wildfire in Nevada state history. A number of wildlife species rely on numerous critical habitats damaged in the Martin Fire, including sage-grouse, mule deer, bighorn sheep and elk.

Management intervention is required to break the cheatgrass-wildfire cycle for recovery of habitat quality for the numerous wildlife species affected as well as grazing resources. The best-known method at suppressing cheatgrass and associated fuels is through the establishment of deep-rooted perennial grasses.

A massive collaborative effort took place between the U.S. Government, State Agencies, private business and non-government organizations which included the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) as well as wildlife and conservation organizations which included Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, Nevada

Chukar Foundation, Nevada Muleys, Carson Valley Chukar Club and Nevada Gold Mines.

In the process of applying seeding treatments, the Government experienced a shutdown, temporarily halting the BLM’s efforts, but due to the strong partnership with NDOW and the BLM, NDOW did an excellent job and played a major role in seeing this massive seeding effort through without delay.

Of the 435,000 acres that burned, this collaborative effort seeded over 70,000 acres in late 2018 and early 2019 and treated another 65,000 acres with pre-emergent herbicides in 2018 to control cheatgrass and followed up with more seeding applications in 2019. The goal of this restoration/ rehabilitation effort was to enhance food and cover resources for wildlife and livestock. Efforts aimed to restore/rehabilitate rangelands to an improved state for wildlife and sustainable grazing practices by establishing a high density of native and introduced perennial grasses to suppress cheatgrass and associated fuels. Cheatgrass dominated habitats were treated with pre-emergent herbicides as an aggressive and effective weed control program followed by the seeding of perennial grasses, shrubs and forbs.

There was also a goal to monitor these treated habitats to gauge the success of treatments. A number of seed mixes were aerially applied (Table 1) to more than 57,000 acres which included native

Figure 1. The Martin Fire of 2018 swept across the landscape burning critical wildlife habitats and grazing resources as well as threatening life and property and destroying critical rangeland infrastructure. (Photo courtesy of BLM)

and introduced grasses, shrubs and forbs. Aerial seeding is often required due to inaccessible and/or rough terrain not suitable for equipment needed in drill seeding operations.

Drill seeding operations took place under wet, muddy, and frozen as well as dry conditions which resulted in a number of issues when trying to seed at proper seeding depths and reducing soil disturbances. Seed mixes used in the drill seeding treatments (Table 2) were applied to another 5,987 acres, with another 7,614 acres of greenstip mix of Siberian wheatgrass and ‘Immigrant’ forage kochia seeded to reduce wildfire threats along roadsides.

In addition to the seeding projects, there was also another 65,217 acres that were treated with the pre-emergent herbicide, Imazapic (trade name Plateau). Plateau was applied at a 6 oz/per acre rate with 3 gallons of water per acre for optimal efficacy. This formula also allowed contractors to haul more water in a single day covering more acreage.

Herbicide treated areas were monitored the following spring and summer to measure the efficacy of the herbicide application efforts on cheatgrass control. Measurements recorded significant reductions in above ground cheatgrass densities which resulted in a significant reduction in cheatgrass seed bank densities. Areas treated with herbicide in 2018 received aerial seeding applications in the fall of 2019 with a mixture of native and introduced grasses, shrubs and forbs.

Through the monitoring stages, treatments were given a rating of 1-10 (poor – excellent), with the highest score, 10, being reported in the aerially applied Elko Seed Mix #1, followed by the drill seeded Greenstrip Seed Mix, 9, aerially applied Winnemucca Seed Mix #2 rated at 8, and the drill seeded Winnemucca Seed Mix #1 rated at 7. The other seed mixes rated in the medium success range, and though the aerial application of Wyoming big sagebrush and Western yarrow experienced very good success (Fig. 2), the aerial application of perennial grasses experienced low to medium success. Drill seeding of perennial grasses provided much more success as was anticipated (Fig. 3). “Immigrant’ forage kochia experienced very good success in the Greenstrip Mix, while ‘Immigrant’ and ‘Snowstorm’ forage kochia success was more variable throughout the treated

areas. In addition to these seeding treatments, many of the habitats experienced good release of residual perennial grass species including squirreltail, Thurber’s needlegrass and Sandberg’s bluegrass.

One of the most successful attributes of the efforts put forth to restore or rehabilitate rangelands burned in the Martin Fire is partnerships. Partnerships provide an opportunity to combine and stretch resources further than individual efforts. Furthermore, partnerships create a more durable environment and are an important element for successful restoration or rehabilitation of rangelands. Specifically, when the BLM was furloughed due to the Government shutdown, the partnership with NDOW allowed for the seeding of nearly 19,000 acres in the Winnemucca District during that shutdown period. Additionally, partnerships with ARS and their decades of plant material/seed mix testing and cheatgrass control research using pre-emergent herbicides shed light on the best plant species and seed mixes to use to increase success and decrease costs.

...continued next page

Figure 2 (top) Application of heavy rate of Wyoming big sagebrush, Western yarrow and Siberian wheatgrass in pre-selected strips resulted in excellent establishment of seeded species.

Figure 3 (bottom) Drill seeding of perennial grasses increased perennial grass density nearly 4-fold. Unseeded area (right) with residual grass density compared to seeded area (left).

In addition to these partnerships, implementing several different treatment options can gain knowledge for future restoration or rehabilitation practices following wildfires. Throughout the efforts put forth on the Martin Fire, all involved parties agree that moving forward, incorporating more fire-resistant seed mixes around roads and infrastructure will help ensure future protection from wildfires.

The extensive mapping of critical wildlife habitats helped with identifying areas to use best practice seed mixes using species such as Wyoming big sagebrush and western yarrow and when its best to utilize forage kochia in seed mixes. The focus of these species for cover and forage will be beneficial for decades in the absence of wildfire, especially ‘Immigrant’ and ‘Snowstorm’ forage kochia which have many attributes to establish in arid environments as well as resprout following wildfire (Fig. 4, above).

Overall, the use of the pre-emergent herbicide, Plateau, is considered a successful tool in controlling cheatgrass and reducing cheatgrass competition in order to improve seeded species establishment. Establishing a high density of deep-rooted perennial grasses can lead to long-term suppression of cheatgrass.

The various seeding success rates can partially be attributed to seeding at different times which ran some applications into the spring of 2019 or seeding in muddy or frozen ground which reduced proper seed placement and establishment densities.

Although seeding large acreages as was done in the Martin Fire has its challenges, it is best to seed in the fall and early winter compared to late winter and spring months when temperature and moisture soil conditions are less favorable. Furthermore, getting the seed on or in the soil prior to winter allows for stratification, increased germination and earlier emergence of seeded species which contributes to a longer seedling root growth period before dry summer months.

By understanding that there was a seed shortage of certain species, utilizing the method of seeding Wyoming big sagebrush and Western yarrow at heavier rates, 1.0 and 0.10 lbs/acre, respectfully, on every third arial broadcast pass compared to seeding at the lower rate of 0.33 and 0.03 lbs/acre rates, respectfully, resulted excellent recruitment of these two species (Fig 2)

Although budgets and the cost of a higher seeding rate may lead to seeding less acres, it is more beneficial to be successful on 500 acres than fail on 1,000 acres. Reducing the number of species in a seed mix allows those species that have the inherent potential to germinate, emerge and establish in these environments to be seeded at recommended seeding rates rather than decreasing their rates to accommodate for species that struggle to experience success (Fig. 5a and b, above).

The partnerships that were achieved throughout the Martin

effort were critical in the success of

effort and they continue to grow and prosper.

Figure 4 (left). The utilization of forage kochia species seeded on disturbed rangelands can provide much needed nutritional value on arid rangelands for various browsers as well as domestic livestock. ‘Snowstorm’ forage kochia (green plants) the first year after seeding.

Figure 5 (below) A-top: Burned habitat shortly following the 2018 Martin Fire (Photo taken 10-2018). B-bottom: Seeded area, 3 years after the fire. Siberian wheatgrass was the main grass species that established from all seed mixes.

Fire restoration/ rehabilitation

this wildfire rehabilitation

The change in agriculture today is just a glimpse of what lies ahead. It’s why, more than ever, we are committed to being the partner you can trust, who understands your needs and delivers value to help you achieve your goals.

Wherever agriculture goes, we’ll be there, alongside you, as you lead the way.

As summer comes to an end the Churchill County FFA program has done many fun, and exciting events! All the way from parades to back to school night, the chapter has been very busy. July 4th was an exciting day for our chapter! As we decorated our float and went through the parade, many families came to support and see the FFA float and many other floats from the community. Thank you to Hank Wohle for donating the trailer for the float! We would also like to thank Christy Dock for donating the truck to drive the float! Since the officer team has just started the year, we have had some officer retreats. From the Lake to the classroom, we have been together to team build and plan the year. As an officer team, it is important to become a great team and learn about each other before we can run the chapter!

This October, our State Champion Creed Speaker Allie Fait and Livestock Judging State champions Riggin Stonebarger, Allie Fait, Bailey Prinz, and Jeramiah Prinz will be going to the National FFA convention to compete.

Funding Opportunities

• USDA Rural Development announced investment funds to help rural Nevada businesses. Microloans for small businesses and entrepreneurs will be administered through the Nevada Development Corporation.

• USDA Farm Service Agency resources – relief programs have been extended and are available for producers experiencing challenges due to adverse weather, flooding and drought:

• Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm-raised Fish Program (ELAP) – offering livestock and feed hauling cost assistance

• Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)

• Emergency Farm loans

• Emergency Relief Program (ERP)

• Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP)

• Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP)

• USDA Rural Development resource guide to help rural entrepreneurs start and grow their businesses.

• A new website, www.usda.gov/meat, communicates open and pending programs focused on expanding meat and poultry processing capacity.

As it comes closer to time to leave, these kids are selling raffle tickets to raise money for the trip, and they need your help! Tickets are five dollars each, you can win a half of a local raised pig, or a fifty pound beef box that was donated by Fallon Processing! For every five tickets you will be entered in a separate drawing to win a RTIC Ice Chest. The drawing will be held on August 28th at the Cantaloupe Festival. For tickets you can contact Codie Stonebarger at (209) 409-5600, or Heidi Fait.

On August 10th the Churchill County High School put on a back to school night where many clubs, athletic, and Nevada college booths came to see new arriving freshman and returning students. The FFA booth was a major hit as many Freshman signed up for FFA, and got to see the Chapter Bunny! Thank you again from everyone at the Churchill County FFA. We hope everyone had as great a summer as we did!

Upcoming events and holidays

• Aug. 31 – Board of Agriculture meeting https://agri.nv.gov/Board-of-Agriculture-Meetings/

• September – National Food Safety Education Month

• Sept. 4 – Labor Day (NDA offices are closed)

• Sept. 28 – World Rabies Day

Job Opportunities

• Administrative Assistant 2 (Elko) $38,419.20 to $55,603.44 PG25

• Agriculturist 2 (Sparks) $53,390.16 to $78,884.64 Pay Grade 33

• Field Assistant 2 - Predatory Animal and Rodent Control (Elko) $38,419.20 to $55,603.44 Pay Grade 25

• Weights and Measures Inspector 1 (Sparks) $45,184.32 to $66,043.44 Pay Grade 29

• Keep up to date with all NDA job openings at https://nvapps.state.nv.us/NEATS/Recruiting/ViewJobsHome.aep

Newhouse Launches Endangered Species Act Working Group

Today, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA), the Congressional Western Caucus, and the House Committee on Natural Resources launched an Endangered Species Act Working Group. The Working Group will seek to examine how the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is being implemented by federal agencies, the practical impacts on the American people, how litigation is driving ESA decision-making, and how success is defined under the ESA. The goal of the Working Group will be to publish a series of policy recommendations that reform the ESA to the benefit of the American people and species conservation.

“Only in the federal government would five percent be deemed a passing grade, but that is exactly how ‘successful’ the Endangered Species Act has been at recovering species,” said Rep. Newhouse. “It is clear the ESA is in desperate need of reform, not only for the sake of our species, but for the men and women of Central Washington who are negatively impacted by its land use restrictions, impact on property values, and costly permitting requirements. I am proud to launch this working group with House Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman to work towards providing tangible, actionable solutions to the ESA for the betterment of the American people and species recovery.”

“The Endangered Species Act is a well-intentioned but entirely outdated piece of legislation which must be brought into the 21st Century. With hundreds of species being listed under the Endangered Species list but with a dismal 3% having been delisted, clearly something is not working. It’s time to take action,” said House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR). “Today, we’re formally launching the Endangered Species Working Group with members from the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Western Caucus to take the first significant action on this legislation since the 1980s. This year is the 50th anniversary of the ESA, and since its creation it has been twisted and morphed by radical litigants into a political firefight rather than an important piece of conservation law. I’d like to thank Congressman Newhouse and the other members of this working group for taking these initial steps to modernize this archaic law.”

Members of the Working Group include Reps. Bruce Westerman (R-AR), Mark Amodei (R-NV), Cliff Bentz (R-OR), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Harriet Hageman (R-WY), John Duarte (CA-13), Judge Carter (R-TX), Jerry Carl (R-AL), and Lauren Boebert (R-CO).

BACKGROUND:

Since Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, approximately 1,700 species have been listed as threatened or endangered, not counting experimental populations. Only three percent of these species have been considered recovered and delisted. In addition, the Biden Administration has taken steps to undo the critical work done by the Trump Administration to reform the ESA. This has left stakeholders and members of Congress frustrated and substantially increased the appetite to find targeted and sustainable reforms to the ESA.

NDA Division of Animal Industry welcomes new Administrator

The Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDA) has selected Chad Sestanovich as the new Administrator for the Division of Animal Industry. Administrator Sestanovich come to the NDA with more than 30 years of experience in different areas of animal industry.

“We are fortunate to have someone with Chad’s background, knowledge and skill to oversee the Division of Animal Industry and I look forward to the leadership he will bring to this position,” said NDA Director J.J. Goicoechea.

Administrator Sestanovich received his Associate of Applied Science in Animal Science from the College of Southern Idaho and an Associate of Science, Veterinary Technician degree from Truckee Meadows Community College. He has spent his life working in all aspects of agriculture, including everything from animal disease to livestock identification. Administrator Sestanovich was first involved in the animal industry as a ranch hand on his family’s hay and cattle ranch in Nevada. He spent eight years as a Veterinary Technician, and most recently was assistant ranch manager at Mori Ranches. Administrator Sestanovich will be based in the Elko office and make his home in eastern Nevada with his wife and two daughters.

University provides advanced education needed for wildland firefighters

Participants gain knowledge & skills to help manage fires and rangeland, meet federal requirements

It’s not easy to attend classes when you’re in the field fighting fires and helping to manage a delicate balance of resources on rangelands. Yet, there are federal education and training requirements for many wildland fire personnel, to equip them with the knowledge and skills needed to do their challenging jobs and make the right decisions considering a complex web of factors. Faced with a shortage of professionals meeting these requirements, BLM Nevada came to the University of Nevada, Reno for help. It was the University’s College of Natural Resources, Biotechnology & Natural Resources, known as “CABNR,” that had the faculty with the expertise to develop and deliver a program to meet the need.

“This program started as a big ask of CABNR and has transformed our employees who have attended it,” said Paul Petersen, former state fire management officer with BLM Nevada, who initiated the program and retired this spring. "After the first class, the enthusiasm and feedback were amazing, and I knew we had a great program. This has potential to change fire management visions and direction.”

About five years later, more than 100 students have completed the two-year “Rangeland and Fire Ecology Education Program,” and now meet the requirements for positions classified as “Series 401, Natural Resources Management and Biological Sciences” positions by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. More importantly, they are fully armed with the knowledge and skills needed to battle wildfires and maintain rangelands and natural resources.

“I have multiple emails from former students that make this program the best thing I have ever done for rangeland in my entire 30-year career,” said the College’s Professor Tamzen Stringham, who worked with other partners to put together the program. “I love this program and the positive impact it has on the students’ lives and on management of our beautiful natural resources.”

Tailoring to wildland fire professionals’ needs

Stringham, who also conducts on-the-ground research as part of the College’s Experiment Station unit, adapted some materials used in the University’s traditional oncampus classes, as well as developed new lessons and activities, to meet the needs, and schedules, of wildland fire professionals. The program consists of eight threecredit courses, each two to four weeks long, that are held January – April and October – November, to avoid the busiest wildland fire season. It is administered through the College’s Extended Studies unit, which provides various professional development programs customized to provide training for specific industries and help fill workforce needs.

Some of the program’s coursework is completed online, but the distinguishing feature of the program is the strong integration of hands-on fieldwork designed to help participants learn how to apply what they learn during online segments or field lectures. Field segments take place in a variety of ecosystems throughout Nevada and are led by academic faculty and field professionals from agencies

such as the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service and Nevada Department of Wildlife. Ranchers and others working in land stewardship and resource management also help lead work in the field.

“We take them out and make them ‘ecological detectives,’” said Yvette Gibson, the program’s coordinator who also leads some of the fieldwork sessions and courses. “They figure out how to use what they’ve learned about soils and different types of vegetation to help come up with the best management decisions that align with what’s going on in the landscape.”

Participants learn about a variety of topics that impact their work, and that their work impacts, such as range management and restoration, riparian management and restoration, range-livestock interaction, shrubland ecosystems, and range and forest administrative policies. They learn how to analyze soils, identify vegetation, and formulate and apply computational analysis to natural resource issues.

Gratitude from graduates

Professionals who have completed the rigorous program say it helps them in their jobs in various situations.

“This program has given me the knowledge to make better informed decisions when it comes to on-theground things, like where to put a fire line in, when and what to seed and where,” said one program graduate. “It also has given me more ‘common ground’ to be able to communicate to private landowners and the public, about what we are doing as land managers and why we are doing it.”

Gibson said the goal is to increase the understanding of the whole picture when working in wildland fire-related positions. Professionals completing the program often share that they look at their jobs quite differently after putting in the two years of coursework.

“Having an understanding of the basic ecological function has increased my awareness and gratitude for botany, hydrology, soil and wildlife,” said one participant. “I used to be really narrow minded in terms of the fire program being the best thing that ever existed. I see myself as a steward of the land now and not just a prescribed fire specialist.”

Graduates of the program enjoy sharing their expanded perspectives while working on the job with their colleagues.

“This program allowed me to understand that every resource program on our forest hinges of one another from fire to fuels, to botany, to hydrology, to wildlife,” another graduate shared. “I now cringe when specialists and fire folks think it's their program versus the rest of the programs. I'm honored to have the responsibility to educate one employee at a time and show them the ‘holistic view’ I learned while taking this program.”

Growth and looking to the future

The first cohort of the program included 42 students, 24 from BLM Nevada and the rest from five other states in the West. The group started in January 2019 and finished in fall 2020. As word of the program spread, the second

cohort, which began in January 2021 and finished in fall 2022, grew to 62 students – 22 from BLM Nevada and the remainder from nine other states and other agencies, such as the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Department of Defense, Ohio State Forestry and others. The third cohort, with 67 students, began their training this January and will wrap up in fall 2024. Stringham said the program is serving as a pipeline to fill many vital positions.

“State and BLM fire management officers, assistant fire management officers, fuels management specialists and many other fire related positions, all must be 401 qualified,” she said. “In addition, most of the hazardous fuel positions – fire ecologists, district fire leads and fire planners –require the 401 education level. Seasonal firefighters and fire engine personnel do not have to be 401 qualified, but most will want to move up into higher-paying jobs at some point in their careers. These jobs typically will require the 401 education level. The 401 job series requires 24 college credits classes in natural resource focused coursework. Eighteen credits must be upper division.”

New to the program for the cohort that began this year is the option to take three additional courses, which also makes them “454 qualified,” a higher education level that is required for those seeking “454 Series, Rangeland Management Specialist” positions. Of the 67 students in this year’s cohort, 18 are planning to complete the additional three courses to also become 454 qualified. For both the 401 and 454 programs, all students get in-state tuition rates, no matter where they live or work.

“We know there aren’t a lot of programs like this in the West, or in the country, for that matter,” Stringham said. “So, we want to make it available and affordable not only for our Nevada professionals, but for those in our neighboring states and other parts of the country. As we’ve all learned, wildfires have no boundaries. We need to do everything we can to help manage them and our natural resources nationwide.”

UNR AGSC413 Class Pic

University hire aims to boost pipeline for ag & environmental science teachers

Charmayne Mitchell brings experience, education and enthusiasm to her new role with the University

It’s no secret that teachers are in short supply in our state, especially ones to fill vacancies in the sciences. At the University of Nevada, Reno, the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources has hired Charmayne Mitchell as the NevadaTeach master teacher for agriculture sciences and environmental science. As such, Mitchell will help guide students through this dual major program that allows students to earn degrees in education and either environmental science or agriculture simultaneously, without adding extra time or money to the students’ college education.

The NevadaTeach Program began at the University nine years ago and now includes a choice of 11 different majors to pair with the degree in education. NevadaTeach wasn’t in place when Mitchell earned her own degree from the University in 2014, a bachelor’s in secondary education with an emphasis in agricultural science and a minor in health education.

“It took me longer to get through school because I had to take so many extra classes for both degrees, as well as the minor,” Mitchell said.

Mitchell said the program can be a game-changer for students who have an interest in teaching.

“I can see how important it is for students to get an early look at what teaching has to offer,” Mitchell said. “With NevadaTeach, they can start teaching lessons in their first semester here, and then decide if that is actually the best career choice for them.”

Teaching future teachers

Mitchell has deep roots at the University beyond earning her degree. She comes to her new role from recent work as the Mineral County outreach specialist for University of Nevada, Reno Extension. Mitchell also has experience teaching in both secondary and collegiate settings. She’s taught Career and Technical Education classes at the University as well as taught students at Battle Mountain High School and Smith Valley School. She said she’s always loved working with high school students in particular.

“Don’t get me wrong, I love freshmen and sophomores,” she said. “But, I truly connect with seniors and especially kids who are taking college classes while in high school. It was always my desire to teach at the secondary level, and there are always open positions at schools for ag teachers.”

Helping to prepare teachers of the future is a major reason Mitchell wanted to become a master teacher. As a nonacademic counselor, she will guide students on the pathway to earning dual degrees.

“Part of my motivation is to help our University provide ag teachers that can come directly from college to take on these jobs around the state and fill those positions that might not always be filled, so we have a solid agricultural foundation for all high school students,” Mitchell said.

This summer, Mitchell attended a conference for NevadaTeach personnel from across the state. She said she learned a lot about the program and what the climate is like right now around the state for teaching at all levels. She sees her role as part of the support system for her students, instilling passion in education for these sciences, which in turn will bring more quality high school teachers into the system.

“New teachers at the high school level shape the future for everyone because of who they are teaching,” she said. “It will be great to have more passionate teachers out there, and teachers who are excited for the position and not fearful of the changes and the struggles that they will endure through all the changes taking place in the world.”

Mitchell also wants to provide ongoing support, even after her students graduate. “I’d love to be that connection throughout their life, if they have questions or want some advice,” Mitchell said. “Even if they want more information about placement at a school, I hope they aren’t afraid to reach out to me. I can help make those connections between university-level graduates and the high schools.”

The future of agriculture education in the modern world

Having a full-time master teacher to support students from the College is important for overall teaching of agriculture and environmental studies in the modern

world, said Claus Tittiger, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the College.

“Agriculture is STEM,” he said. “There is a lot of hightech involved, especially in Nevada where you have to manage the water and soil and see how agriculture reacts to the environment. There are robotics and drones and satellites that monitor data. That requires a highly educated workforce to support the education of agriculture in high school so students can be more aware of this and get more involved in it.”

Tittiger is looking forward to working with Mitchell and supporting her efforts.

“We’re super happy that Charmi is here, and she is very qualified to be a master teacher,” Tittiger said. “Not to put pressure on her, but with her presence here, we’re hoping that it builds more interest in what we have to offer.”

To that end, Mitchell shares Tittiger’s view that her role is also meant to recruit incoming high school students into the NevadaTeach Program at the University.

“We want to grow and make progress as much as possible,” Mitchell said. “I want to open up the doors for students to attend the University and navigate the dual-credit program the best way they can.”

For more information on NevadaTeach, visit its website, or contact the program at nevadateach@unr. edu or 775-682-8715.

Charmayne Mitchell is the new master teacher for the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources, helping guide students through the dualdegree NevadaTeach Program, which prepares students to be teachers of environmental science or agriculture upon graduation. Photo by Dallas Taliaferro.

Lessons focused on wildfire make science relevant to high school students

Extension develops curricula and training programs in wildfire and natural resources management for Nevada high school students

As wildfires will continue to challenge Nevada and the West for decades to come, educators and firefighting agencies are teaming up to make sure teens gain an understanding of the complex issues surrounding wildfire and natural resource management, and that we develop a workforce ready to tackle these issues. Along the way, students gain an increased appreciation for classroom science concepts they are required to learn.

UNR Extension has developed a Living With Fire Wildfire Science Curriculum for high school science classes, with biology and earth science units already available online and more units in the works. In fact, 35 teachers have been trained to teach the material and have taught lessons to more than 1,200 students. But, Extension faculty say this is just the tip of the iceberg. They’re ready to help more teachers incorporate the curriculum into their science courses this fall. And, they’ve embarked on an innovative, collaborative Fire Science Academy program that will allow sophomores at the Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology (AACT) in Reno to enroll in a three-year course of study this fall that will prepare them to be firefighters upon graduation, as well as allow them to earn college credits.

“We’re really excited to be working with our firefighting agency partners and local school districts to provide education on these important issues, and to help develop the workforce we need to address them,” said Christina Restaino, assistant professor and natural resources specialist at Extension. “The curriculum has been really well received by both teachers and students. And, the new Fire Science Academy at AACT has taken a lot of work and collaboration, but it’s going to be worth it. We can’t wait to get it off the ground when school starts.”

Showing students science matters

The Living With Fire curriculum covers important science concepts in biology, earth science, environmental science and agricultural science. According to Spencer

Eusden, Living With Fire curriculum developer, the main goals of the curriculum are to increase students’ understanding of how wildfire works, empower them to increase their household's wildfire preparedness, and increase their awareness and interest in careers related to wildfire. Additionally, the lessons aim to help students cope with trauma from experiencing wildfire.

“The lessons also include trauma-informed activities to help support students who have experienced past wildfire-related trauma and to increase youth resilience before they might encounter a wildfire,” he said. The curriculum was developed to fit into existing high school science classes and to follow Next Generation Science Standards, K–12 science content standards that set the expectations for what students should know. All lessons include career spotlights highlighting potential careers in fire or natural resource management and contain a “careers in wildfire” activity, where students use an interactive diagram to explore available career paths. Lessons also include hands-on activities for inside and outside the classroom.

To determine what type of content was most appropriate to include, Restaino and Eusden interviewed 125 people, including fire professionals, scientists, high school science teachers, members of tribal organizations and other educators. The resulting curriculum units include: Biology – In this six-lesson unit, students learn about the role of invasive annual grasses on wildfire frequency and their impact on Great Basin ecology. Students end the unit by designing a fuels-management project that incorporates budget considerations and different land management strategies.

Earth science – This five-lesson package is broken down into two units, where students investigate factors that impact wildfire severity and post-fire erosion. Students investigate climate projections for the state of Nevada to

make their own prediction of future wildfire severity, and analyze wildfire severity maps to identify priority areas for post-burn restoration to reduce erosion.

Environmental science – In this six-lesson unit, students explore data on the causes of variation in wildfire occurrence in different years and conduct a climate change modeling activity. They also design an independent investigation about how scientists balance creating fuel breaks with protecting sage grouse habitat.

Agricultural science – This eight-lesson unit covers similar topics to the biology unit, covering invasive grasses, wildfire frequency and land management, but focuses on how these concepts are applied to rangeland management.

The biology unit and one of the earth science units are complete, and more than 1,200 students have engaged in some of the lessons in schools in Washoe, Storey and Elko counties, and in Carson City; and at Extension’s 4-H youth camps and the University’s Nevada Tribal College Prep Camp. The other earth science unit and the environmental science unit will be available later this year, and the agricultural science unit will be available next year.

Living With Fire staff has led 23 curriculum training sessions for teachers so far, where they also got valuable feedback. Based on teacher input, some activities were adjusted to work better for larger class sizes and to pace lessons to more appropriately challenge students, for example.

Julie Koop, a science teacher at Carson City High School, said the biology unit was taught to over 655 freshmen at their school last year, and that it was very well received by the students.

“A lot of times, students want to know why they need to learn about things like biology and earth sciences, for example,” she said. “It was really cool because the kids were able to learn about these things by studying an area in their own back yard. And, they’ve lived through smoke and wildfire in their area, so they could relate to the curriculum and why it’s important to learn about these things. It was rigorous, but that’s what learning needs to be. Having the firefighters there and people from Extension, and the career readiness component, that was also really beneficial for the students.”

To support the development and implementation of the curriculum, FEMA contributed $223,598 and the Bureau of Land Management contributed $685,539. The Nevada Office of Science and Technology provided $8,000 to fund teacher co-production sessions and curriculum trainings.

Nevada teachers looking for more information on the curriculum or in-class support using it can contact Restaino at restainoc@unr.edu or 775-784-4848.

A proactive approach to developing a firefighter workforce

The Fire Science Academy program will be the newest

Students from a Sparks High School AP Environmental Science class study vegetation on a hillside east of Sparks that burned in 2017 and 2021 as part of a Living With Fire curriculum lesson. Photo by Megan Kay.

offering this year, among a variety of career and technical education programs at the Academy of Arts, Careers and Technology, which is part of the Washoe County School District in Reno. Sophomores this fall will be able to enroll in the five-semester program, and upon graduation in spring 2026, they will be eligible to be hired onto wildland fire crews. They will also have earned some college credits through a partnership with Truckee Meadows Community College and be ready to take a one-semester fire academy program offered by the college that will qualify them for municipal firefighting jobs.

According to Restaino, the new offering is the result of a lot of collaboration fueled by a desire to benefit students, address challenges posed by wildfire, and help fill our state’s need for firefighters and first responders.

“Extension is just one player in this program,” she said. “Our firefighting partners at the BLM and Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District, the Washoe County School District and the Academy, and Truckee Meadows Community College have been all in to make this happen. It’s really exciting.”

According to Fire Captain Cameron Peek, who does training for the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District, in recent years, the need for trained firefighters has become critical, and firefighting agencies are being proactive to help fill that need.

"There is a demand for trained personnel in the public safety profession,” he said. “This program allows young adults to experience the fire and EMS field and the role that public service plays in our community. The program will give them a jump start in this dynamic career and will provide a pathway for students who are seeking to serve our region as a first responder."

Restaino said students will be enrolled in a variety of fire science courses taught by Bureau of Land Management and Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District instructors using state and national curricula adapted for high school classrooms by Extension’s Living With Fire Program.

“We’re working to match existing entry-level firefighter training courses with the required Nevada Department of Education Career and Technical Education Quality Program Standards,” she said. “We’re revising these courses to match the needs of high school students and providing training to BLM and Truckee Meadows Fire professionals on how to instruct high school students. As part of this program, we’ll also work with the firefighting agencies to place interested students in age-appropriate wildfire summer jobs.”

The program will be much more than classroom lessons, with a lot of hands-on learning.

“The hands-on learning experiences, simulations and practical exercises will promote active learning and appeal to students who may not thrive in traditional classroom environments,” said Matt MacKay, career and technical education coordinator with the Washoe County School District, who worked with AACT Principal Mike Gifford to get the program off the ground. “In addition, it supports the district’s goal of providing diverse learning opportunities to cater to different learning styles.”

For more information on the Fire Science Academy at AACT or the Living With Fire Wildfire Science Curriculum, contact Restaino at restainoc@unr.edu or 775-784-4848.

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) announced Aug. 7, 2023, an investment of $56 million in 11 projects, spanning a total of 21 institutions in 19 jurisdictions, through NSF's Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). The University of Nevada, Reno is included in a $6 million award in a three-state collaborative project to address climate change in underserved rural communities.

The project, “Where We Live (W2L): Local and Place Based Adaptation to Climate Change in Underserved Rural Communities,” will advance research, education, workforce development and partnerships among Idaho, South Carolina and Nevada – communities and landscapes each experiencing drought, heat and wildfires. The University of Idaho, leading the project, will receive approximately $2.44 million over four years. The University of Nevada, Reno and University of South Carolina will each receive about $1.77 during that same time span.

"As evident from EPSCoR’s impact, investing in research infrastructure is a powerful catalyst for strengthening our nation's security, competitiveness and fostering groundbreaking scientific advancements," NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan said. "I'm thrilled to announce this year's EPSCoR Track-2 awards, which will strengthen community and regional efforts to understand the impacts of a changing climate and enhance the resilience of disproportionately affected communities. By addressing these critical challenges, and engaging with communities impacted by climate change, we have the potential to advance innovation and promote economic stability and recovery in EPSCoR jurisdictions and beyond."

Nevada is uniquely situated in a high-desert, arid location where climate change impacts historical water use on tribal lands, irrigated agriculture important to the state’s economy, water quality and wildlife habitat protection.

“The funding from NSF on this highly competitive RII Track-2 grant will provide us resources to interact with and learn from our many underserved, rural communities in Nevada,” Loretta Singletary, the University’s project principal investigator and Extension interdisciplinary outreach liaison in the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources and professor of economics in the College of Business, said. “The goal is to enable better adaptation planning and action by exploring how a variety of small changes can enhance climate resilience in these communities that are central to our nation’s sustainability and security.”

This investment is a component of NSF's ongoing effort to build research and development capacity and education in states that demonstrate a commitment to research but

have not received the levels of investment seen in other parts of the country.

Under the program, researchers will partner with local, state, tribal and federal organizations in rural communities. These communities constitute nearly 84% of the United States land area and are home to only 14% of the population. These areas serve as critical sources of food, freshwater, wildlife habitat and energy as well as supporting carbon sequestration, education, recreation and tourism.

“The reality of a changing planet is often at odds with perception and adaptation for everything from human health to national security,” Lil Alessa, the research project principal investigator and co-director of the University of Idaho’s Center for Resilient Communities, said. “Dialogues and policy making occurs mostly in urban areas, but rural communities are our make-orbreak for adaptation to environmental change.”

This collaborative research project brings together a number of scientists across academic disciplines in all three states to look at differences in climate change impact perception and adaptation across the country, as Idaho, Nevada and South Carolina are experiencing varied types of effects from environmental change –drought, heat and wildfire.

“Understanding the perspectives of rural areas in our three states as they confront these challenges is critical to expanding and accommodating the diversity of resilience experiences seen across the nation,” Susan Cutter, lead of the University of South Carolina team and co-director of the Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute, said. Nevada faculty on the project include University PI Singletary, Co-PI Elizabeth Koebele, associate professor in the Department of Political Science in the College of Liberal Arts; Co-PI Dilek Uz, assistant professor in the Department of Economics in the College of Business and Nevada Experiment Station; and Co-PI Christine Albano, assistant research professor at the Desert Research Institute’s Division of Hydrologic Sciences.

The W2L project will support workforce development and advancement in STEM education by funding early-career faculty, postdoctoral scientists, doctoral students, undergraduate research summer experiences and graduating high school students in summer training experiences to provide meaningful research opportunities. The project is funded by NSF award 2316127. The FY23 funding for the University of Nevada, Reno is $888,482 for a total intended award amount of $1,775,748, which amounts to 100% of the federal share.

To learn more about this project and how to get involved, email singletaryl@unr.edu.

University awarded nearly $1.8M for collaborative research project to study rural perception of climate change

National Science Foundation’s EPSCoR RII Track-2 program funds 11 projects in highly-competitive process

Extension and law enforcement team up to change lives of

at-risk

youth

Hydroponics and mentorship combine to bring together diverse groups and change the school culture

A unique program using horticulture combined with mentorship is changing the lives of students through a program called “Young Men Mentorship through Hip Hop, Literacy & Horticulture,” created in partnership between University of Nevada, Reno Extension and law enforcement in Clark County. After successfully launching a pilot program using this new curriculum at Western High School with Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in 2022, Extension continued to work with law enforcement in North Las Vegas to create a culture of change at Legacy High School in the 2022-2023 school year with the program. The program will soon be making its way into more Clark County schools, as more law enforcement programs and Extension seek to benefit students in additional high schools.

Program roots

This 12-week program aimed at gang intervention and curtailing violence in schools was created by Extension Youth Horticulture Education Program Officer Tricia Braxton Perry and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Officer Arnold Parker, who worked together to develop the curriculum. The two were introduced by Olivia Smith, who previously served as community outreach manager at Nevada Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield Medicaid Division and is now director of community engagement for the police department’s foundation. Anthem provided a grant that funded the hydroponic equipment at The Harbor Sites Juvenile Assessment Centers where Extension’s Youth Horticulture Education Program was setting up hydroponics units as part of its work with the “diversion” program.

Diversion programs are intervention approaches that redirect youths away from formal processing in the juvenile justice system, while still holding them accountable for their actions.

Smith saw the value of what Perry was trying to accomplish at The Harbor and connected Perry with Parker. Perry said they knew they wanted to work together on a program aimed at youth and improving communities; they just needed to figure out how. Perry is familiar with law enforcement community work since she is a retired New York City police officer who worked with youth projects while assigned to patrol.

“Three people had an idea to impact lives in a way that was meaningful, and help students identify careers they may not have identified with,” Perry said, as she described the program’s beginnings.

As they partnered to develop a curriculum, Perry and Parker created a program that explores the themes of self-identity, group identity, leadership skills, community leadership, and college and career preparation aligned with academic content standards. The pilot program at Western High School was made possible through the support of former Assistant Principal Malena Baizan, who also worked with Parker on the mentorship portion of the curriculum.

Extension is tasked with providing the horticulture education and career readiness portion of the curriculum, while law enforcement provides the mentorship component. Through the partnership with law enforcement, students can develop positive relationships with police officers as the students embark on their journey of self-discovery and selfdevelopment as leaders among peer groups and communities.

Program participation

Participating students are usually referred to the program by school counselors who think students may benefit. This might include students who struggle with truancy, academics or behavior, but sometimes it’s through word of mouth from their peers. Parker said that they conduct interviews with students to let them know what they are joining, and make sure they understand what they’re getting into and that it’s a good fit. They work to identify students they think can make a positive difference in the school once they complete the program. Parker said he sees the students who participate as influencers.

“We want to work with a diverse group of kids, but we’re not talking about diversity as far as color,” Parker said. “We’re trying to prevent violence in schools, and we want to elevate students, but we know who we want to elevate. We might get that truancy kid, behavioral kid or kids who are struggling academically. But we tell the schools that we want a diverse group that includes leaders. I don’t care if you're a gang leader, or if you’re captain on the football team, basketball team or sports team, or an academic. We want every type of kid in

that classroom because what we learned is when we bring them all into the classroom, they all have a lot of similarities because we are at high-risk schools. The kids aren’t high risk, it’s the environment they’re in.”

How the program works

The selected students attend the class during their normal school day, rather than after school when participation or attendance may be a challenge. Rather than a traditional classroom, the rooms are furnished with couches and bean bags to create a less institutional atmosphere, one that will draw students in.

Throughout the program, the focus of the curriculum alternates weekly between mentorship and horticulture education.

It starts with mentorship weeks, during which the officer shares a poem or a music video that is related to that week’s topic. This serves as a catalyst for discussion amongst the students and their mentor. These dialogues provide opportunities for the students to connect with each other by sharing their experiences, while officers share a bit about their life experiences.

“It’s when you are able to talk about real-life experiences that you are able to engage as human beings, and that connection is so valuable,” Perry said.

The program size is kept small intentionally to allow for more meaningful connections.

“We keep it at just under 20 [students],” Parker said. “I don't know if it would be effective if we had 50 kids. It's vulnerable conversations, and for that, it needs to be smaller.”

In the following week, Extension instructors teach plant science using hydroponics, which is a soil-less technique used to grow plants. These activities serve as practice for students to develop 21st century skills needed to succeed in the world, such as problemsolving, leadership, collaboration, communication and observational skills. At the same time, they’re learning all about how to take care of a plant and what its needs are.

“The topic of the mentorship week may be about teamwork. The following week the hydroponic project will rely on teamwork to troubleshoot potential equipment problems with the hydroponic unit,” Perry said. “The complexities of hydroponics calls for knowing about troubleshooting strategies. They take the whole process of taking care of plants, which can then be related to taking care of other aspects of their lives.”

The goals

The program has multiple goals. In addition to changing culture, the program also aims to open students up to new opportunities and equip young men with the tools they need to lead happy lives and succeed in the world through self-determination, selfempowerment and perseverance as they follow their chosen paths.

Extension Community Based Instructor Taylor Quiram assists a student using the hole saw as they create their own hydroponics unit.

Photo by Arnold Parker.

Contact: Claudene Wharton

Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist, UNR 775-784-7072 | whartonc@unr.edu

“We really want these kids to see that there are opportunities for them to learn about different careers,” Perry said. “We have to make sure that our kids in Nevada see themselves in the key job sectors for the future. Agriculture is a key sector that is growing in our state. These kids are now considering jobs in agriculture.”

Connections

Culture changes are being seen from the students’ participation and the relationships they are building with each other.

“We’re creating a safe haven for these kids who might not otherwise have interacted to connect,” Parker said. “Now our groups come together. They’re going to say ‘that's my friend’ now. And by making that connection, we’re coaching them to reduce violence between groups.”

Participation in the program is having a positive impact on the lives of the students.

“They are making better decisions,” Parker said. “For some kids who weren’t showing up to school, they were making the decision to come. And that means from 7:00 to 3:00, they were not on the streets. They were on campus.”

Taylor Quiram is an Extension community-based instructor who teaches hydroponics at Legacy High School. He said that the kids just seeing adults make a commitment to them, just showing up and offering this experience, is changing the students.

“I've heard the kids make comments that they notice who's showing up,” Quiram said. “They respect that the person is loyal and they're always here. So, kids saying that about the instructors makes them want to show up and be part of this.”

Perry echoed this sentiment.

“At first, some of the students are skeptical about working with law enforcement and University staff,” Perry said. “But these kids know what it looks like when someone shows up for a legitimate reason.”

The future

Perry is looking forward to expanding the reach of this program. She is actively working with Parker, Smith and other law enforcement agencies and schools to see how the program can further be implemented.

For more information, contact Perry at tbraxtonperry@ unr.edu.

A team of students from the Mackay School at the University of Nevada, Reno took second place in the first annual AmericanMade Carbon Management Collegiate Competition. The top left features a photo of Alexia Carver, the top right a photo of Kamal Mousavi, the bottom left a photo of Trista McLaughlin and the bottom right a photo of Ash Thompson.

UNR student team takes second place in national carbon management competition

Students were tasked with identifying ways to use or store carbon in their region

A team of students from the University of Nevada, Reno’s Mackay School received news last month that they placed second in the first annual American-Made Carbon Management Collegiate Competition.

The team, who named themselves “Biggest Little Lithium” in a play on Reno’s slogan, is comprised of three undergraduate students, Alexia Carver, Trista McLaughlin and Ash Thompson, and one graduate student, Kamal Mousavi. The team was mentored by Department of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering Professor Ehsan Vahidi.

“I want to express my immense pride in our team's achievements and their dedication to making a positive impact on carbon management practices,” Vahidi said.

The competition, hosted by the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, challenged students to propose regional carbon networks that would annually transport at least one million metric tons of carbon dioxide from industrial sources to locations that can use or permanently sequester CO2.

The top three teams, including the first-place team from the University of Michigan and the third-place team from the University of Houston will present their winning proposals at the DOE’s annual Carbon Management Research Project Review Meeting in August of 2023. The meeting is being held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

“[The meeting] provides an excellent opportunity for the team to present their winning proposal and to network with carbon management professionals,” Vahidi said.

The second-place prize earned the team $8,000, which will be split evenly among the students. Carver, the team captain, will be using the prize money to pay for travel to the conference in August and to finance her proposed research on bio-mining in the fall semester.

“Our team is the next generation of metallurgists, geologists, and environmentalists, so the strategies in this project will be vital for creating more sustainable mining technology as we enter the workforce— especially in the lithium sector,” Carver said.

Biggest Little Lithium’s submission turned CO2 into magnesium carbonate through modern chemical engineering. Carbon capture will reduce the environmental footprint of the Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada.

“By addressing the carbon emissions associated with the mining process, our team aimed to contribute to sustainable practices in the industry,” Vahidi said. Throughout the competition, the team was able to access industry experts at Lithium Americas for guidance. The DOE also provided guidance midway through the competition. The students gained skills and hands-on experience that can be applied in industry.

College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources University of Nevada, Reno

July 2, 2023

To: Ms. Tracy Stone-Manning, National Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.

From: Dr. William Payne, Dean of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources, University of Nevada-Reno Director Manning,

It is my pleasure to offer these comments regarding the currently proposed Public Lands Rule. The comments are a compilation of College of Agriculture faculty with expertise in policy and the sciences of rangeland ecology and management, and resource economics here at the University of Nevada-Reno.

Best Regards,

William Payne, Ph.D., Dean of CABNR

Cc: Barry L Perryman, Brad Schulz, Paul Meiman, Bob Alverts, Tom Harris, Mike Taylor, Buddy Borden, Tamzen Stringham, Gary McCuin

College of Agriculture, Biotechnology, and Natural Resources, University of Nevada-Reno Ecological and Economic Policy Assessment of Comments on USDI, Bureau of Land Management

Conservation and Landscape Health 88 FR 19583 Proposed Rule Change; (43 CFR Parts 1600 and 6100); [LLHQ230000.23X.L117000000.

PN0000]; RIN: 1004-AE92; July 3, 2023

Treatment of the Founding Principle:

The principal statement upon which the entire rule change proposal is based, is found in section III. Background; A. The Need for Resilient Public Lands (last sentence); As intact landscapes play a central role in maintaining the resilience of an ecosystem, the proposed rule emphasizes protecting those public lands with remaining intact, native landscapes and restoring others”.

While maintaining options for future generations through resilience is the highest and best plan for public land management, the foundation expressed in the rule change document: “…protecting those public lands with remaining intact, native landscapes and restoring others…” is grounded in neither ecological nor economic realities. First, plant communities are dynamic systems that evolve, going through successional changes even in protected circumstances. For instance, if sagebrush systems could be cordoned off from invasive species and

fire disturbances at a moment in time (an impossibility), a half-century later they would not resemble the same systems structurally or compositionally that were protected five decades prior. Shrub densities and age classes would change over the landscape as plants mature and die while new stands develop. Understory species (grasses, forbs, soil biotic crusts) would shift and change along with sagebrush stand changes. Areas that were excellent seasonal habitat become poor seasonal habitat.

Second, ecologically there is no such thing as “…remaining intact, native landscapes”. It is an indefinable term; and which entities will decide what intact could mean? For simplicity’s sake, and despite the fact that there is no scientific ecological support for this claim, assume that intact means that there are absolutely NO exotic, invasive species present in the plant community. Under this assumption if one could possibly circumscribe an area of sagebrush system that contained within its boundary no invasive annual grasses, on the other side of the boundary, invasive annual grasses will and do exist. If the non-invaded area was protected from the livestock grazing process, invasive species will expand into the area and become the dominant lifeform (Gornish et al., 2023; Davies et al. 2021; Perryman et al., 2021; Stephenson et al., 2022; Perryman et al., 2020; Porenski et al. 2020; Perryman et al., 2018). Invasive species will expand into the

protected area regardless of management efforts. Protection, and even active management efforts, will not prevent or eliminate the presence of invasive species. The key is preventing or reducing their dominance, not their presence.

If remaining intact, native landscapes refer to landscape compositions and networks of the past, then things like Little Ice Age Climate features, interstate and intrastate linear disturbances such as roads and railroads, urban development, fencing, and the addition of free-roaming bison herds and their unmanaged grazing behavior, intentional burning by Native Americans, and extensive naturally ignited unsuppressed fires would have to be included in the management parameters. We cannot go back in time in an attempt to produce what someone’s preferred perception of an 18th or 19th century landscape structure and composition might have been. It is an ecological impossibility.

Ecosystems cannot be perpetually protected, ever…anywhere, from any disturbance or invasion without dire ecological future consequences. There is no scientific evidence that protection will ensure health and resilience of landscapes. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. This same management approach (PristineManagement-Paradigm; Perryman et al. 2003) employed over the past century has led to the fuel accumulations driving devastating wildfires and species invasions of the present. Additionally, with the advent of invasive species in all landscapes since the 19th century, native ecosystems in the western U.S. are now novel ecosystems with new species compositions and should be managed differently than they were even a few decades ago. Protection to maintain the current ecological state or phase forever, is neither ecologically possible nor a thoughtful idea. The proposed rule is an example of linear thinking approaches to natural resource management that do not consider unintended negative consequences of the action. The rangeland ecology and management profession has embraced non-linear management approaches for at least three decades. Non-equilibrium and non-hysteresis models of plant community changes are a product of modern science and used by the BLM today. The proposed rule nullifies the entire scientific ecological field and instead proposes to base the rule on bad, antiquated, thoroughly debunked science of protection to achieve an imagined state of ecological balance, the pristinemanagement-paradigm. The proposed rule will set scientific discovery and progress back, resetting the clock for decades. False, linear ecological paradigms have led and

will continue to lead to consequences that limit resilience and our management options for the future.

It is also important to recognize that the underpinning language discussed above that forms the foundation for the entire rule change is not found in the Purpose (Section 6101.1) of the proposed rule or in the discussion of its purpose (Page 19588). The proposed rule lacks any clear statement of purpose that is meaningful, ecologically sound and logically related to the actions encouraged or required by the remainder of the proposed rule. As a result, the reader is left to search the other sections of the proposed rule to attempt to determine its actual purpose.

One reasonable place to look for indications of purpose is the discussion of the proposed rule’s purpose (Page 19588). Here, the reader finds two dominant themes. First, there is a strong emphasis on “establishing a regulatory framework”. Is there any evidence that “a new regulatory framework” will do anything to ensure ecosystem resilience? Second, there is a surprising and undeniable emphasis on managing old-growth forests. This section relies heavily on Executive Order 14072 and discusses the importance of healthy forests on BLM lands, placing considerable emphasis on mature and oldgrowth forests. Interestingly, two-thirds of the text in this section that describes the proposed rule’s purpose, is devoted to managing for resilience of old and mature forests on BLM lands. How much forest, and specifically mature and oldgrowth forests does BLM manage? Is the proposed rule only applicable to forests managed by BLM? The word “forest” appears an impressive 5-times in this relatively short section that discusses the proposed rule’s purpose, while “rangeland” does not appear in this section even once. The word “rangeland” only occurs 3-times in the entire proposed rule and only because of references to “rangeland health”. Is the purpose of the proposed rule to guide management of mature and old-growth forests on BLM lands? If not, and it is intended to guide management across all lands managed by BLM, how applicable are EO 14072 and concepts regarding health of mature and oldgrowth forests to other ecosystems such as rangelands? Also worth mentioning is the intersection of old-growth woodlands and pinion-juniper encroachment concerns and patterns. Encroachment occurs under protection management scenarios. Old growth means “old growth”, a plant community nearing the end of its natural life cycle. Protection beyond that parameter has devastating consequences as witnessed by recent wildfires in BLM

Oregon & California Railroad Revested forest areas of western Oregon. Again, the proposed rule is based upon mythological ecology without any connection to reality.

The underpinning language of the rule change is hopelessly flawed and impossible to achieve from a scientific, ecological standpoint. The entire approach is based on imposing plant community land use standards on dynamic ecosystems. Related to the false ecological paradigm that underpins this effort, the proposed rule also fails to recognize that all lands are part of human managed landscapes.

The proposed rule completely ignores more than a century of Congressionally approved legislative bills that reflect the definition of conservation established by President Roosevelt and Forest Service Chief Gifford Pinchot, that conservation is simply the wise use of natural resources, for the greatest good, for the greatest number in the long run. Through the years federal agencies, in response to Congressional legislation, developed sound policies, rules, and proven practices in support of this definition, along with multiple-use and sustained yield practices of natural resource management. This document, however, ignores this history as if it never existed. This history represents multiple attempts to develop and describe the relationship between human managers and the systems for which they manage natural resources. It may be incomplete or imperfect, but it should not be ignored. Again, the proposed rule attempts to turn an overarching philosophy (conservation) applicable everyplace, into a largely static land use intended to achieve perpetual, largely static outcomes from systems that are dynamic in nature. The rule is based on an ecological myth.

Some of the key historic laws that established the foundation of conservation principles through sustained yield multiple-use management of natural resources include:

Hatch Act of 1887, Forest Reserve Act of 1891, Forest Fire Prevention Act of 1897, Sundry Civil Act of 1897, Forest Reserves Transfer Act of 1905, Weeks Law of 1911, Smith-Lever Act of 1914, National Park Act of 1916, Clark-McNary Act of 1924, Recreation and Public Purpose Act of 1926, McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928, Knutson-Vandenburg Act of 1930, Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, Oregon and California Railroad Grantland Act of 1937, Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954, Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960, McIntireStennis Act of 1962, Wilderness Act of

1964, Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1964, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, National Trails Act of 1968, National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970, Wild Horse and Burro Act of 1971 (and subsequent amendments), Rural Development Act of 1972, Endangered Species Act of 1973, Forest and Rangeland Renewable resources Planning Act of 1974, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, National Forest Management Act of 1976, Clean Water Act of 1977, and Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978.

For a rule change to suggest that conservation is a “use” in and of itself not only violates the century-long history of resource management legislation and practice, but also creates an Executive Branch definition established by administrative rule. Congress has defined conservation in numerous legislative acts, including those listed above. To suggest that new regulations are needed to implement this new definition, developed by and for one specific agency, is without merit and would cause confusion and inconsistencies. There is nothing in the proposed rule that the BLM cannot accomplish under existing law, regulation, rule, and policy. Why is a rule addition necessary? Further, there are no details in the document. A rule must contain specifics regarding implementation and compliance, otherwise it is open for widely held interpretations among polar viewpoints, which leads to more litigation. Some examples are presented below under specific comments.

Conservation is an overarching philosophy, not a land use. The Society of American Foresters Dictionary of Forestry defines conservation as, “the management of a renewable natural resource with the objective of sustaining its productivity in perpetuity while providing for human use compatible with sustainability of the resource. For a forest this may include managed, periodic cutting and removal of trees followed by regeneration conservation.” The Society for Range Management defines conservation as, “The use and management of natural resources according to principles that assure their sustained economic and/or social benefits without impairment of environmental quality.”

The document once again ignores and seemingly rejects more than seven decades of active natural resource management applying the principles of multiple use and sustained yield and the work of thousands of dedicated resource professionals, academics, and leaders.

Multiple Use was defined by Congress in the 1960 and 1964 Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Acts, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The Society of American Foresters Dictionary of Forestry defines Sustained Yield as “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annular periodic output of the various renewable resources without impairment of the productivity of the land.” Likewise, the Society for Range Management defines it as, “Production of specified resources or commodities at a given rate for a designated unit of time.” There is no need for a new definition of conservation as a use, especially one that pertains only to the rule document and nowhere else in scientific literature, legislation, or case law. Another major flaw that is not addressed in any way is the question of professional capacity and the appropriations to fund that capacity. The Bureau of Land Management is in some cases 30-years or more behind in renewing current grazing permits as one example. There is a current shortage of trained and experienced rangeland ecology and management graduates from both accredited and non-accredited university programs. The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the NRCS have been partnering with the Society for Range Management over the past several years in an attempt to recruit more high school graduates and other interested publics into the profession. Land management is a profession that requires specific training and education. Other degree tracks such as environmental studies do not qualify graduates to work as land managers. These are professional positions with stringent requirements and educational qualifications. Given the current workforce shortage, it would be impossible to implement such a rule for a decade or more until shortages are overcome. There is a backlog of data collection and permitting decisions now with the current workforce. Implementation of a form of this rule would create an unfunded mandate that could never be achieved.

The draft rule also places renewed emphasis on prioritizing the designation of new Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). Many dedicated and competent natural resource professionals have effectively managed the Public Lands for seven decades. Over forty years ago, BLM Districts followed the 1980 Final Guidelines for Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern during their respective Resource Management Planning processes established by FLPMA. BLM Districts aggressively examined and dedicated many ACECs during the intervening time through Resource Management Planning. As an example, forty years ago this year, the Oregon Roseburg District Office evaluated fifteen recommended ACECs. Seven areas were found to be qualified for their relevance and importance and were designated in the 1983 Resource Management Plan. A significant effort to identify and protect lands suitable for designation as ACEC has been ongoing, and the legislative authorities and planning rules for creating ACECs have not changed. New ACECs as recommended by this proposal should be the rare exception, making no further action necessary.

Moreover, lands dedicated as ACECs do not necessarily preclude development, but help ensure the consideration of the sensitive values at issue in those cases where appropriate development may be planned. Approximately 25% of BLMmanaged public lands are already included in special management designations: Wilderness Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Conservation Areas, National Monuments, Wilderness Study Areas, ACECs, and other designations made either through the legislative or administrative processes that already exist. This indicates that BLM already has the necessary rules and procedures in place to protect special areas, making the proposed rule unwarranted.

It also appears the proposed rule has not gone through the process of advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that is important to all interests and constituencies. No informational meetings have been set in several key states with significant BLM land areas (e.g., Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming). Such meetings should be added as part of the process.

Socio-Economic Impacts Insufficiently Explored

The economic and fiscal implications of conservation leases on rural communities and counties, which are likely to restrict or prohibit commercial uses (mineral, oil and gas, animal agriculture, etc.) and recreation on large areas of public land, have been left out of consideration and insufficiently analyzed. There is no discussion of how the implementation of conservation leases will fiscally impact federal payments-in-lieuof-taxes (PILT) for public lands associated with rural counties and municipalities.

There is no discussion of how conservation leases will exclude public land from potential conversion to municipal and industrial development in areas adjacent to urban areas, thereby restricting continued economic and population growth in these areas (e.g., public lands on the outskirts of the Las Vegas metro area in Clark Co., Nevada).

In addition to economic and fiscal impacts, there is no discussion of how continued expansion of renewable energy projects on public land, projects critical to achieving the national climate goals, will affect rural community infrastructure and school systems.

Financial institutions such as Farm Credit make loans to rangeland ranch enterprises. If cattle are reduced due to lower AUM allocations, loans that are on the books of financial institutions will be under pressure. Reduced herd size will force some federal land grazers to bankruptcy or operate with revenue streams that are incapable of servicing existing loans. These loans are on the books of financial institutions and will force bank actions that include collateral takeovers that are below loan values. This would have devastating consequences for bank balance sheets while the national banking system is under current pressure.

Fragmentation of Public Lands through Conservation Leases will Restrict Economic Activity

There is no discussion on how the introduction of conservation leases and the increased use of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) could be used strategically to fragment the landscape in order to restrict commercial development beyond the geographic footprint of the lease/ACEC.

Multiple Use and Access to Public Lands

Expansion of conservation leases and ACECs could restrict recreation on public lands, thereby rendering those lands effectively private for the lifetime of the conservation lease and contravening the spirit of the multiple use mandate.

Relationship with Grazing Leases

Several aspects of the relationship between conservation leases and grazing leases are insufficiently addressed. For example, would targeted-livestock grazing be an approved conservation practice? Targeted grazing is a widely used tool for controlling the dominance of invasive annual grasses. If so, would it economically benefit ranchers to elect to use conservation leases rather than grazing leases? Will it restrict the use of a scientifically sound management tool for the sake of an anti-grazing ideal that is not grounded in science?

Further, there is limited discussion in the proposed regulation on the administrative requirements to apply for/maintain a conservation lease. Would there be support offered to smaller entities, such as many current grazing lessees, to develop conservation plans necessary to successfully obtain conservation leases?

Conflicting Public-Land Leases

The procedure to resolve potential conflicts where an entity wants to pursue a conservation lease on a piece of public land currently used for a commercial purpose (e.g., mineral, oil and gas, livestock grazing) is not explained.

Agency Capacity

It is well-known that the BLM faces challenges processing renewals of current public-land grazing permits given current staffing. The proposed regulation does not sufficiently address how agency staffing will expand to handle the increased volume of administrative work associated with the creation of conservation leases and expanding the permitting process currently used for grazing permits to all BLM-managed lands. These activities require trained professionals with degrees held in rangeland ecology and management or similar programs. The document does not address this human capital challenge at all.

Specific Comments:

Page 19584: “the proposed rule clarifies that conservation is a use on par with other uses of the public lands under FLPMA’s multipleuse and sustained-yield framework.” This statement relies on FLPMA language, Sec 103, C, (definition of multiple use): “a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values;” These either produce a tangible product in demand by society, have unique features that attract visitors, or are sufficiently unique from other areas to benefit the scientific community. Conservation as a land use has none of these readily identifiable features or clear benefits to society. Conservation is not a clear use but rather is an overarching approach and philosophy. Land uses are implemented with conservation in mind, to the extent possible (e.g., minerals, oil and gas) with a specific land use.

Page 19586: with respect to conservation leases: “These leases would be available to entities seeking to restore public lands or provide mitigation for a particular action. They would not override valid existing rights

or preclude other, subsequent authorizations so long as those subsequent authorizations are compatible with the conservation use.” There is no definition of “compatible” and no discussion of how it would be determined or who would determine it. The statement also ignores the reality that resources such as minerals occur where they occur. Many, especially rare-earth minerals, are essential to meeting industrial and national security needs. The proposed rule has a strong potential to preclude access to these resources in perpetuity, adversely affecting economic well-being of local communities and states, and national defense.

Page 19586: “Any conservation lease issued for the purposes of providing compensatory mitigation would require a term commensurate with the impact it is offsetting.” With respect to minerals, many ROW and utility/transportation distribution systems, and possibly oil and gas, conservation leases for these land uses are permanent, given the permanence of these uses and the indefinite duration of the effects of their actions within their footprint. No other permitted land use has a guarantee of being allowed forever in a specific area. It is then no longer a lease but a perpetual right.

Page 19586: “Conservation leases and ACECs could also provide opportunities for co-stewardship with federally recognized Tribes and additional protections for cultural resources.” What data exists indicating that cultural resources need additional protection? Archaeological laws, regulations and policies are broad, strongly adhered to and very effective. This statement seems to award the potential for co-stewardship to federally recognized tribes but no other entity, including land users. This seems quite exclusionary.

Page 19587: The proposed rule responds to, and advances directives set forth in several Executive and Secretarial Orders and related policies and strategies.” Executive orders and Secretarial orders are intended to clarify laws, regulations and policy based on said laws and regulations.” Proposed rules are not developed to further said Orders. As stated, this is a backwards approach outside the normal use of Laws, regulations, policy and associated Orders.

Page 19588: Section 6101.4—Definitions

“This section provides new definitions for concepts such as conservation, resilient ecosystems, sustained yield, mitigation, and unnecessary or undue degradation, along with others used throughout the proposed rule text. These definitions apply only in 43 CFR part 6100.” Changing long-standing and clearly understood definitions crafted by professional land management societies to address a single proposed Federal rule,

which is subservient to Congressional legislation (FLPMA) has no legal or land management basis. Going forward it will only result in confusion and management paralysis.

Page 19588: “The proposed rule would define ‘‘conservation’’ in the context of these regulations to mean maintaining resilient, functioning ecosystems by protecting or restoring natural habitats and ecological functions.” There is no definition provided for what constitutes a natural habitat; thus, it can become a moving target subject to the interpretation of one individual or organization, which may change with time or location. It fails to recognize a modern reality: there are many novel plant communities present on BLM land, often with introduced species (plant, animal and fish) that benefit wildlife and other uses. If natural means absence of non-native species, that is impossible to achieve and maintain in most areas (invasive plants are not going away and none have yet to be drastically reduced, let alone eliminated). Many of these were introduced purposely to achieve management goals and objectives, because native species are notoriously unsuited for restorative seedings (or have few propagule sources) for many arid-lands, given the abundance and adaptability of undesired invasive species, especially invasive annual grasses, but also other listed noxious weeds (e.g., knapweeds and thistles).

Page 19589: The proposed definition would also clarify that Indigenous Knowledge can be high-quality information that should be considered alongside other information that meets the standards for objectivity, utility, integrity, and quality set forth in Federal law and policy. What about knowledge from any other individual, family, group or organization that has spent decades of time on the area being considered? A multi-generation ranching family often has substantial knowledge and high-quality information that deserves equal consideration of the information and knowledge available to decision makers. Conversely, much ecologically based traditional native knowledge has been lost over time since treaty and settlement implementations. Page 19589 (and definition on page 19598): “The proposed rule would define the term ‘Indigenous Knowledge’ to reflect the Department of the Interior’s policies, responsibilities, and procedures to respect, and equitably promote the inclusion of, Indigenous Knowledge in the Department’s decision making, resource management, program implementation, policy development, scientific research, and other actions. Indigenous Knowledge (IK) means a body of observations, oral and

written knowledge, practices, and beliefs developed by Tribes and Indigenous Peoples through interaction and experience with the environment. IK is applied to phenomena across biological, physical, social, cultural, and spiritual systems. IK can be developed over millennia, continues to develop, and includes understanding based on evidence acquired through direct contact with the environment and long-term experiences, as well as extensive observations, lessons, and skills passed from generation to generation. IK is developed by Indigenous Peoples including, but not limited to, Tribal Nations, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians.”

This proposed rule elevates Indigenous tribes and peoples above all others. Why is this appropriate? Tribal citizens are likely to have knowledge that others for the most part, probably lack. This knowledge, however, does not automatically carry over to better knowledge about land management. Tribes and their members have no greater history (interaction) than non-tribal entities with invasive species and other issues on public lands that have appeared since the late 1800s. Focusing on any one entity will ultimately result in valuable information that others possess not being included in future planning processes and decisions. Information from all available sources should be readily sought, with equal effort toward and value of all groups. The elevation of indigenous groups above all others also appears to occur on page 19592. Specifically, “to protect resilient ecosystems; and meaningfully consult with Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. Authorized officers would be required to include Indigenous Knowledge in decision making and encourage Tribes to suggest ways in which Indigenous Knowledge can be used to inform the development of alternatives, analysis of effects, and identification of mitigation measures”. Consultation with Tribal Governments should be encouraged in order to provide input for any issue related to land management (regardless of whether or not this rule is adopted). Tribal Governments should not be excluded from the process, nor should any other group or individual with appropriate knowledge. The level of encouragement for participation conferred toward tribes should be no less or no greater than that put toward others.

Page 19592: “… the proposed rule does not prohibit land uses that impair ecosystem resilience; it simply requires avoidance and an explanation if such impairment cannot be avoided.” This same concept seems to occur under NEPA. If NEPA covers this approach why is an additional layer of compliance needed?

Additional compliance requirements will only lengthen the process of any land management action/decision and often reduce decision space and flexibility. A longer process to achieve the same outcome will only work against the need for timely and flexible management decisions, which ultimately works against maintaining ecosystem resilience.

Page 19592: “Proposed § 6103.1–1(b) through (d) would require the authorized officer to establish goals, objectives, and success indicators to ensure that each land health standard can be measured against resource conditions and to periodically review authorized uses for consistency with the fundamentals of land health. Once land health standards and guidelines are established, any action in response to not meeting them would be subject to § 6103.1–2(e)(2) and taken in a manner that takes into account existing uses and authorizations. Under the proposed rule, the BLM may establish national indicators in support of the implementation of the fundamentals of land health.” Nowhere in the discussion associated with this statement does the proposed rule consider site potential. Every ecological site, or suite of ecological sites across a landscape has a specific potential for plant species, plant communities and biomass production. Goals, objectives, standards and guidelines have to fall within the sites/landscape potential. If not, failure is the eventual outcome, and likely the loss of ecological resilience, or inappropriate implementation of a land use, including “conservation” should it become a land use.

Page 19584: (1st paragraph of Executive Summary): Is it true that the “public lands are increasingly degraded and fragmented due to adverse impacts from climate change and a significant increase in authorized use”? Can this be substantiated? Blanket statements such as this are mis-leading and offer no scientific evidence of the claims. Landscapes include humans and some fragmentation is a consequence of economic development that cannot be removed, notwithstanding there is no specific definition of fragmentation, and fragmentation can be good or bad depending upon the combination of species and the value judgements placed upon them. Parsing of landscapes can just as easily increase biodiversity as it may threaten other species or groups. Again, bad science underpins the proposed rule. Which authorized uses have increased?

Livestock grazing has decreased over the past few decades while recreation (motorized, non-motorized, and dispersed) has increased.

Page 19584: (2nd paragraph of Executive Summary and throughout document):

This section states that the definition of conservation includes “protection and restoration”. The actual definition of “conservation” in the proposed rule (page 19598: Definitions) does not just include “protection and restoration”, but rather limits conservation to just those two components! The Society of American Foresters and Society for Range Management definitions of “conservation” are much more inclusive of a wide variety of efforts. The overriding tone of the proposed rule and its definition of “conservation” separates conservation from land uses and puts them at odds with one another. This is a false dichotomy, a gross oversimplification of conservation vs. use, and another example of non-hysteresis, linear thinking. Managing uses is what conservation is…or should be (e.g., Range Conservationists were not, and are not government employees whose job it was to eliminate livestock grazing, but rather those who promoted and pushed for appropriate or improved approaches to livestock grazing management).

Page 19585 (under “Management Decisions to Build Resilient Public Lands” (III.B)): Here, the proposed rule states that conservation is “not limited to lands allocated to preservation, but applies to all BLM-managed lands and programs.” What is “preservation” compared to “protection”? Protection is a rejected linear management approach, and it is unclear what the definition of preservation is. Does this statement imply that the intent of the proposed rule is to place all BLM land into preservation (protection)?

This section continues with “Conservation, in this proposed rule, includes management of renewable resources consistent with the fundamentals of land health (described below), designed to reach desired future conditions through protection, restoration and other types of planning, permitting, and program decision making.”

The first part of this statement is in direct conflict with the definition of conservation presented in the proposed rule – it limits conservation to protection and restoration, and this text includes management of renewable resources. The desired future condition approach is appropriate ecologically, but it is not defined here and in conflict with the main underpinning concept of “intact landscapes”. For instance, livestock grazing management should be included as a conservation action, but the proposed definition for conservation indicates otherwise since it limits conservation to protection and restoration.

Page 19584, (2nd paragraph of Executive Summary): “It also advances tools and

processes to enable wise management decisions based on science and data”. There is no indication of how the rule would do this, and who or what entity determines what wise management may be or how the rule will promote management based on science and data.

Page 19585, (Management Decisions to Build Resilient Public Lands; III.B.): “… the BLM does not currently have regulations that promote conservation efforts for all resources.” Livestock grazing regulations currently promote conservation efforts for all resources. True, they focus on a single land use (livestock grazing), but promote conservation efforts for watershed, wildlife habitat quality, fuels management, carbon sequestration, air quality, water quality, fisheries, and other ecosystem services. Rangelands are a kind of land, not a land use (Society for Range Management Glossary). The resource and use should not be confused. If what is meant is that the BLM currently does not have regulations for all of the land uses they manage, then that is an appropriate statement. However, the proposed rule lacks a clear statement of purpose as was discussed above. The quote presented above from Page 19585 appears to be an attempt to clarify the intent of the proposed rule and provides solid evidence that the authors have no realistic conceptions about management and conservation.

Page 19586 (Science for Management Decisions to Build Resilient Public Lands; III.C.): This section addresses extending fundamentals of land health to all uses, and in doing so directs them to make determinations about the causes of failures to achieve land health.

There is no description of how other land uses will be assessed or monitored other than the statement, “To support conservation actions and decision making, the proposed rule applies the fundamentals of land health (taken verbatim from the existing fundamentals of rangeland health at 43 CFR 4180.1 (2005)) and related standards and guidelines to all renewableresource management, instead of just to public-lands grazing.” Holding other land uses to the same or similar standards as livestock grazing has merit, however, it is not that simple. A blanket approach for all uses will not be possible because some land uses (e.g., mining, or other extractive uses for example) have very different impacts. The document must clarify what rangeland health fundamentals will be applied for each designated use described in previously executed land use categories.

Pages 19587-19588, (Related Executive and Secretarial Direction; IIIF): EO 13990; Protecting Public Health and the

Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, “…use science to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change and prioritize environmental justice”. No entity, legislative action, individual, or court has a clear definition for “environmental justice” let alone determined how to prioritize it. Inserting an indefinable, value laden political subject into a rule document is reckless and less than thoughtful. Remove the statement entirely. It has the potential to be at odds with ecology and economics. Justice in the court system frequently leads to the exacerbation of ecological disasters. Case in point, the spread of invasive species and dominance has been fostered by the Justice System time and time again through limitations on targeted livestock grazing implementation.

EO 14008; Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad

“…build resilience against effects of climate change and focus on most pressing vulnerabilities…; The most pressing vulnerabilities have not been identified and no explanations of how they will be addressed are offered. The statement presupposes that there is a “climate crisis”. There is no scientific consensus that a “crisis” is operating. Professional land managers are always operating on the vagaries of weather patterns. It is only when inflexible political agendas are imposed that the management system and efforts break down.

SO 3399; Department-Wide Approach to the Climate Crisis and restoring Transparency and Integrity to the DecisionMaking Process; this statement is politicalspeak and means nothing.

Page 19599, (Section 6102(a)(5); How will BLM determine characteristic disturbances? The proposed rule does not define “characteristic disturbance” nor provide guidance on how to determine it. So, perhaps all landscapes (whatever those are…see definition of landscape in proposed rule) that evolved with large herbivores (Perryman et al. 2021) should be managed for livestock grazing to “maintain or mimic characteristic disturbance.” Further, this must be considered restoration, because it will not fit under the definition of protection in the proposed rule.

Page 19599, (Section 6102.2(a); Requires authorized officers to “use available data, including watershed condition classifications, to identify intact landscapes on public lands…”. 6103.2(a) further requires that “watershed condition classifications” must be completed as part of all land use planning processes.” We are aware of no description

anywhere in scientific literature or agency documents that describe watershed condition classifications for rangelands. If we are correct that they do not currently exist, they must be developed before they can be implemented. Furthermore, the link between watershed condition classifications (whatever they may be) and intact landscapes (there is no such thing ecologically) are unknown and would need to be established. The USDA Forest Service developed a Watershed Condition Classification

(Potyondy and Geier 2011) in response to national guidance in USDA to promote “restoration of watershed and forest health”. Is this the tool that the proposed rule requires to be used? Nowhere in the proposed rule is it specified or cited, nor is USDA Forest Service given credit. If this is the required tool, the rational for its use is not given. How does this compare to existing BLM condition assessments? What makes this more applicable to BLM management than anything the BLM is already familiar with and using? What will be required to ensure applicability of this approach to rangelands and BLM decision trees given it was developed by the USDA Forest Service with an emphasis on forest health and the management of National Forest System lands? If it is determined to be applicable to lands managed by BLM, how much training will be required to ensure effective adoption and implementation of this tool by BLM? This tool is relatively new and has not been thoroughly assessed by the Forest Service. Has the Forest Service provided recommendations for the assessment tool?

Page 19599: Section 6102.1 (a) states, “BLM must manage certain landscapes to protect their intactness”. This wording is vague and problematic. Even if “intactness” could be defined (it cannot, despite the definition offered in the proposed rule; see opening comments), there are also problems with “certain” and “landscapes” as used. How does anyone know which areas are being referred to as “certain”? What defines “certain”? The definition of landscape offered in the proposed rule (Page 19598) is incredibly broad and vague, and further complicates the problem. The end result of this is a requirement for BLM to do something in an area that seems impossible to identify. Even if one could determine what “certain landscapes” and “intactness” mean, the confusion continues as one progresses through this section and considers what could and could not be performed in these areas. Section 6102.1(a)(1) requires “Maintaining intact ecosystems through conservation actions”. Conservation is defined in the proposed rule as “…

protecting or restoring natural habitats and ecological functions”, so those appear to be the only options. If BLM determines that restoration is not necessary, how do they know what management actions they can or cannot implement under protection? Protection is defined in the proposed rule as “the act or process of conservation by preserving the existence of resources while keeping resources safe from degradation, damage, or destruction”. What does it mean to keep resources “safe from degradation, damage or destruction”? Apparently, protection is preservation. Preservation typically results in very limited implementation of management actions, the failed and debunked pristinemanagement-paradigm approach. Is that what is intended by the proposed rule? What management actions are available to BLM under “preservation” as defined in the proposed rule to fulfil the requirements of this section? Further, section 6102.1(a) (2) requires “managing lands strategically for compatible uses while conserving intact landscapes…” This seems to conflict with the definition of protection. Given the definition of protection in the proposed rule (equals preservation), what would compatible uses be and how would they be determined? If one imagines they are an employee of the BLM, whose job it is to manage natural resources and land uses, it is impossible to determine from the proposed rule as written, what is being required or encouraged to happen, how to do it, and where it should happen!

Page 19599, (Section 6102(a)(5)): How will BLM determine characteristic disturbances? The proposed rule does not define “characteristic disturbance” nor provide guidance on how to determine it. So, perhaps all landscapes (whatever those are…see definition of landscape in proposed rule) that evolved with large herbivores should be managed for livestock grazing to “maintain or mimic characteristic disturbance.” Further, livestock grazing must be considered restoration, because it will not fit under the definition of “protection” description offered in the proposed rule.

Page 19595, (New Information Requirements; middle column on p. 19595 under V. Procedural Matters): This section does not provide a comprehensive list of new information requirements related to the proposed rule. For example, new inventories, monitoring and assessment needs, or new land health assessments to name a few.

Page 19586: “Any conservation lease issued for purposes of providing compensatory mitigation would require a term commensurate with the impact it is offering”.

This statement does not indicate how the following issues below will be addressed or analyzed.

LITERATURE CITED

Davies, K.W., J.D. Bates, B.L. Perryman, S. Arispe. 2021. Fall-winter grazing after fire in annual grass-invaded sagebrush steppe reduced annuals and increased a native bunchgrass. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 77:1-8.

Gornish, Elise S., Guo J. S., L.M. Porensky, B.L. Perryman, E.A. Leger. (accepted) Prefire grazing treatments can affect post-fire vegetation in a dryland system. Ecological Solutions and Evidence. 4:e12215

Perryman, B.L., B.W. Schultz, and P.J. Meiman. (2021). Forum: A Change in the Ecological Understanding of Rangelands in the Great Basin and Intermountain West and Implications for Management: Revisiting Mack and Thompson (1982). Rangeland Ecology and Management. 76:1-11.

Perryman, B.L., B.W. Schultz, J. K. McAdoo, R.L. Alverts, J.C. Cervantes, S. Foster, G. McCuin, and S. Swanson. (2018). Viewpoint: An alternative management paradigm for plant communities affected by invasive annual grass in the Intermountain West. Rangelands, 40: 7782.

Perryman, B.L., B.W. Schultz, M. Burrows, T. Shenkoru, and J. Wilker. 2020. Fall-grazing and grazing exclusion effects on cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) seed bank assays in Nevada, USA. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 73:343-347.

Perryman, B.L., R. Wilson, W.I. Morrill. 2003. Viewpoint: Eastern Nevada Landscape Coalition Position: There are consequences of doing nothing in natural resource management. Rangelands, 25(2), 30-34.

Porensky, L.M, O. Baughman, M.A. Williamson, B.L. Perryman, M.D. Madsen, E.A. Leger. 2020. Using native grass seeding and targeted spring grazing to reduce low-level Bromus tectorum invasion on the Colorado Plateau Biological Invasions. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530020-02397-0

Potyondy, J.P. and T.W. Geier. 2011. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. FS978. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 41 p.

Stephenson, M.B., B.L. Perryman, C.S. Boyd, B.W. Schultz, T. Svejcar, K.W. Davies. 2022. Strategic supplementation to manage fine fuels in a cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) invaded system. Rangeland Ecology and Management,

Precision Grazin G at i ts Best

The SymbioTic Union Of Weed Warriors And The United StAtes ForeSt Service

Should anyone doubt the validity of precision grazing, known also as prescribed grazing and prescription grazing, one need only to turn to the United States Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Carson Ranger District in Nevada and check in with either Courtney Ghiglieri, Rangeland Management Specialist, or with Brianna Kooreman, Sierra Zone Biological Technician (Invasive Plants). And then touch base in with Gloria Montero of Weed Warriors.

Courtney has been with the Forest Service for 15 years. She is knowledgeable about the District’s Noxious and Invasive Weeds Program which targets Lepidium latifolium (tall whitetop), Cardaria draba (hoary cress), and Cirsium arvense (creeping thistle), particularly at Mud Lake in Douglas County, NV, where, currently, goats are used as fuel reducers. Additionally, she and Brianna, who has been with the agency for 8 years, are familiar with the broader targeted efforts that are part of the District’s fine fuel’s reduction program utilizing sheep. Prescription grazing can be done with livestock, in general. Currently, the District has three active projects: West Carson (located in Carson City), Arrowhawk (located in Reno), and Jack’s Valley (located south of Carson City).

The Carson Ranger District is one of the first districts to incorporate targeted grazing in their fuel’s reduction program, starting with the West Carson project in 2006 working with Carson City Open Space. The program has expanded to incorporate State, private, and county lands. It has shaped a partnership with the University of Nevada to provide research.

For every problem, a solution awaits. Gloria Montero, owner and operator of Weed Warriors in Lovelock, NV, attended a local weed working group meeting in Douglas County, which led to her bidding on Mud Lake in 2010. She used her goats to control the weed population. Mud Lake was not her first project. Weed Warriors was born in 2007. That year, Gloria’s goats were utilized as a prescription grazing answer to a knapweed issue in Kings Canyon in Carson City.

Gloria was born and raised into goats. As a baby, she could not drink any milk but goat’s milk. Her father raised goats to help his daughter maintain good health. “That saved my life,” she says. She has continued raising goats, with Boer goats her primary breed along with a few dairy breeds. When asked if she has a favorite aspect of raising goats, Gloria replied, “I just love goats.”

In the last twenty-three years, Weed Warriors has completed treatments at Mud Lake seven times, including in 2023. According to Courtney, funding

is not guaranteed every year. Often, there are several years in between where they rely on maintenance from ground-based herbicide methods to control the spread of weeds. They can also run out of contracted time and not fully complete the desired treatment, or the plant phenology is wrong, or the temperatures are too hot, which affects the speed at which goats eat. “There are many variables,” she says. “For example, this year the Cirsium arvense was too mature and not abundant in comparison to all other vegetation. Even with molasses sprayed on the plants, the goats did not want to touch this species this year.”

If one thinks prescription grazing is a hard, grueling activity, one would be correct. However, there are aspects of it that delight the soul. For Gloria, the reward of goat camp at Mud Lake is doing a job where success is determined by a good plan and good follow-through, using the goats as a tool in the tool box of weed control. She says, “Our company has a camp base and we stay with our goats 24/7 for the safety of the animals and to make sure the goats are moved on a timely basis.” There are domestic diseases that can spread to wildlife. All of her goats used for grazing are pre-tested for disease and blood work is done to assure they are healthy and cannot spread illness to wildlife. Assisting Gloria this year was Jayden Green. He says that the full herd was close to 100 goats. Working to set up and move fencing to keep the goats within their specified area, helping Gloria’s Pyrenees canine Annie keep the herd safe from predators, and cooking nutritious meals were not the only activities. Exploring the hills, rivers and trails, swimming, and crawdad hunting helped balance his rewarding experience. “If I had the chance, I would do goat camp all the time. I love to be outside, working with the goats, cooking over the fire, exploring the area around me, and being with someone like Gloria who taught me so much and made everything we did fun and memorable,” he says.

How does the Forest Service choose which area to graze each year? Courtney explained that before they can implement targeted grazing, an environmental analysis must be completed. “We chose Mud Lake because there is an abundance of difficult-to-control weed species in a large, concentrated area that can easily be fenced into pastures to concentrate goats. The use of electric fence and proximity to water ensures project success in the logistically challenging project site. The project site is surrounded by private land, and the weeds spreading onto private land and vice versa was the initial catalyst for treating the site. Mud Lake also hosts a variety of wildlife species that includes mule deer, hawks, migratory birds, coyotes, bobcats, mountain lions, and countless pollinators.”

What are the benefits of prescription grazing? Courtney continues, “The use of targeted grazing extends our window of opportunity to treat noxious weeds at Mud Lake. Goats defoliate these perennial species, putting stress on the plants and forcing them to expend resources for additional vegetative growth instead of producing seeds and storing nutrients for winter. After three to four weeks of regrowth, we proceed with herbicide application that translocate into plant roots to increase our control.”

There are several challenges to prescription grazing. Fluctuating water levels at Mud Lake this year were difficult to maneuver and plan around because surface water changed daily. More broadly, plant phenology and contract timing is the greatest logistical challenge to line up.

The most rewarding aspect of prescription grazing for Courtney is the amount of biomass removed in such a short period of time. She explains, “We were unable to hire a weeds crew in 2023, so the goats were able to prevent seed set and give the Forest Service staff more time to then go back and treat the site with herbicide.” Brianna adds,” I adore seeing the goats’ impact before/after. The amount of vegetation they remove is impressive. Also, tracking how the site changes over the years due to the goats aiding us with access is extremely informative for future treatments.”

Symbiosis … Nature’s way of perfect balance. The United States Forest Service and Weed Warriors have found that balance.

Photos: Gloria Montero

Story: Suzann Gilliland Peterson