[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON H.R. 3705, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC
LANDS IN THE IVANPAH VALLEY, NEVADA, TO THE CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
AVIATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 23, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-91
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-652 cc WASHINGTON : 1998
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
ELTON, GALLEGLY, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
RICHARD W. POMBO, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
LINDA SMITH, Washington FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
RICK HILL, Montana DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
Allen Freemyer, Counsel
Todd Hull, Professional Staff
Liz Birnbaum, Democratic Counsel
Gary Griffith, Professional Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held June 23, 1998....................................... 1
Statements of Members:
Ensign, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Additional material submitted by......................... 4
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from
American Samoa............................................. 1
Gibbons, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 1
Reid, Hon. Harry, a Senator in Congress from the State of
Nevada, prepared statement of.............................. 27
Statements of witnesses:
Culp, Pete, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource
Protection, Bureau of Land Management...................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Walker, Randall H., Director, Department of Aviation, Clark
County, Nevada............................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Additional material supplied:
Innes, Charlotte, Los Angeles, California, prepared statement
of......................................................... 26
The Wilderness Society, prepared statement of................ 26
HEARING ON H.R. 3705, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC
LANDS IN THE IVANPAH VALLEY, NEVADA, TO THE CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
AVIATION
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1998
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Parks and Public Lands,Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:10
a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James
Hansen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. [presiding] Now, we will proceed to hear H.R.
3705.
H.R. 3705, introduced by Congressman Jim Gibbons of Nevada,
would provide for the sale of certain public lands in Ivanpah
Valley, Nevada to the Clark County Department of Aviation. This
land, approximately 6,395 BLM acres, would eventually become a
new airport facility and surrounding infrastructure. The Las
Vegas Valley is the one of the fastest-growing metropolitan
areas in the country. About 50 percent of the annual visitors
to Las Vegas fly to McCarran Airport. This ratio is expected to
rise even further as Vegas increasingly becomes an
international travel destination. McCarran Airport is quickly
reaching capacity.
The new airport facility is needed in the Las Vegas area.
There are several reasons that the Ivanpah Valley is an ideal
place for this airport. The area is far enough away from
McCarran Airport and the Nellis Air Force Base to avoid
airspace capacity restraints, and yet it's close enough to
serve the metropolitan area. The area is right next to the I-15
and the Union Pacific Railroad, providing good transportation
connections. And, finally, there are minimal environmental
problems with the site.
I understand that the administration has a few concerns
with this legislation, but recognize the need for a new
airport, and are willing to work with us to make this happen. I
appreciate that and look forward to working with the
administration. I now recognize the gentleman from America
Samoa.
STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM AMERICAN SAMOA
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3705 provides for the
conveyance of certain public lands in Nevada to the Clark
County Department of Aviation for use as an airport and related
commercial development. I understand that the Bureau of Land
Management will testify that they have a number of concerns
with the bill as currently written. Evidently, there are
several land use conflicts with the proposed airport location.
These conflicts include mining claims, grazing, utility
corridors, a designated special recreation management area, and
a desert tortoise translocation area. I also understand there
are the questions in the math of determination of fair market
value and with the authority.
Mr. Chairman, the questions on H.R. 3705 need to be
resolved. I appreciate the presence of our witnesses today and
look forward to their insight on this proposed legislation.
Mr. Hansen. According to my watch, there's 1 minute and 20
seconds, and then we'll hear from Mr. Jim Gibbons; that is if
he's very punctual. If he isn't, we'll go to our witnesses. I
appreciate you gentlemen for coming up to the table.
[Pause.]
Time has expired. With that in mind, we will turn to our
witnesses: Mr. Pete Culp, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty
and Resource Protection at the Bureau of Land Management and
Mr. Randall H. Walker, director at the Department of Aviation,
Clark County, Nevada. Mr. Culp.
STATEMENT OF PETE CULP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY
AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Culp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 3705, the Ivanpah Valley Airport
Public Lands Transfer Act that provides for the transfer of
certain public lands to Clark County, Nevada to the Clark
County Department of Aviation. As you indicated in the
introductory statement, the concept of a new airport in this
location certainly appears to have merit and there certainly
appears to be a need for a facility like this.
Also, as you indicated, we do have some concerns with the
bill as presently drafted. H.R. 3705 provides for the
conveyance of lands from Jean, Nevada to the Clark County
Department of Aviation over a period of 20 years. The lands are
to be used for an airport facility and associated industrial
and commercial development. Lands would actually be conveyed
under the bill over this 20-year period of time on an as needed
basis to the Department of Aviation, but as the bill is written
that would be based on a market value to be established by an
appraisal to be conducted within 6 months of the passage of the
legislation. The lands will be withdrawn from entry under the
mining laws.
Very quickly, our concerns relate to conflicts that will be
created with certain existing land use in the general area.
There are a variety of third party rights. For example, one
section is encumbered by mining claims; the entire area is
within a grazing allotment; there are two State of Nevada
mineral material sale sites for gravel, and there's some major
power lines through the site.
The issue of desert tortoise habitat that was mentioned is
very much dependent on a precise location of the airport. There
is an area west of Interstate 15 that is a translocationsite
for tortoise that are affected by developments elsewhere in
Clark County. The most recent map which is actually an aerial
photograph that we've seen of the proposed airport site would
avoid that area and thus minimize the impact to tortoise. The
earlier maps showed part of the property west of Interstate 15.
The area has a special recreation management area for off-
road vehicle activities between Primm and Jean that would need
to be relocated. There's presumably an issue of at least dust
that would be created by that type of existing use that might
interfere with airport operations. And the area is currently
used for sky diving which I understand is out of the small
airport at Jean which would be also impacted.
Another concern is the conveyance of lands at less than
fair market value. Very quickly, the issue there is that the
appraisal would be done within 6 months of passage of the bill,
but the actual conveyances could extend out for a period of 20
years during which land values could change significantly. I'll
say quickly, that we recognize that some of that change would
be attributable to the development of the airport itself, but I
believe there are some solutions to that issue that could be
worked out.
And, significantly, I mentioned that there have been
several maps provided to us of the facilities, or the proposed
facility. There is a recent court date that's referenced in my
longer statement that makes the issue of a map very
problematic. We need an officially filed map with clear
delineation of the boundaries.
But, in summary, I believe these issues are amenable to
some work and resolution between the Subcommittee, BLM, and
Clark County, and we can work together to mitigate or resolve
the issues and come to agreement on a suitable location,
boundaries, and provisions. That concludes my testimony, and
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Culp may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you.
The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, do you have an
opening statement you would like to make regarding your
colleague's bill, Mr. Gibbons?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; yes, I do. I'll make
it brief and just ask unanimous consent that my whole statement
be made part of the record.
Mr. Hansen. So ordered.
Mr. Ensign. I'd like to make just a couple of comments.
First of all, this is my colleague Jim Gibbon's bill, and it is
something, though, that the entire congressional delegation
from the State of Nevada. This is brought to us by Clark County
and McCarran Airport. They would like to see as a reliever
airport as well as, obviously, to bring in freight and cargo
from other parts of the world into this area for several
reasons as a reliever airport to McCarran International
Airport.
First of all, this is one of the fastest growing airports
in the world, and it is quickly reaching capacity, and as a
reliever airport, this Ivanpah Valley is a perfect location
because there's very little, as far as environmental, concerns,
because you're talking, first of all, outside of the air
district--I guess you would call it--for the Las Vegas Valley.
This is on the other side of the mountains from the Las Vegas
Valley, and so many of the environmental concerns are quite a
bit less than with this airport out in the Ivanpah Valley.
A couple of the other points that I would like to make that
the BLM brought up. First of all, as far as the grazing rights
are concerned that are on the land, the grazing, from what I
understand, are controlled--they're owned by the county itself,
so I don't think that the grazing rights are a major concern
with this land. Second of all, I do have something I'd like to
make part of the record: it's a letter from the Department of
Transportation. The BLM talked about that the Department of
Transportation has some mineral rights in there for a gravel
pit, and we have a letter here from the Assistant Director of
Planning, Thomas Fronapfel, and he says, ``We have reviewed the
notice the landing area proposed, and this proposal does not
appear to conflict with Department facilities or projects.''
And then it says, ``Should you have any questions,'' I'd like
to have this made part of the record, because they're fine with
the bill.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Letter from Mr. Thomas J. Fronapfel to John Pfeifer
Dept. of Transportation,
Carson City,
Nevada
John Pfeifer,
Manager,
831 Mitten Road, Room 210,
Burlingame,
California.
Dear Mr. Pfeifer:
We have reviewed the Notice of Landing Area Proposal Ivanpah Valley
Airport, 97-SFO-97-NRA. This proposal does not appear to conflict with
Department facilities or projects.
Should you have any questions, please contact the office of
Aviation Planning at (702) 888-7464.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Fronapfel, P.E.,
Assistant Director--Planning.
Mr. Ensign. The second thing is--and I'm glad that you
recognize as far as the desert tortoise habitat that it is on
the other side. The translocation area is on the other side of
I-15, and I think that working--we can make sure that the
details are worked out to make sure that we do have, obviously,
the desert tortoise and the habitat for that is very important
to all residents of Clark County, and we want to make sure that
nothing gets in that way, but, from what I understand, this
bill, as written now, the current form it, will not have any
problems with the desert tortoise because of the translocation
area being on the other side of the freeway.
And, last, let me just say that I think that this bill has
been very well thought out from all of the members of the
delegation supporting it, and this isn't really something that
was driven by the delegation. This was something that driven by
local people coming to us and asking us to support this, and
similar to the Ensign-Bryan lands bill that we brought through
this Subcommittee, when you have local input, you usually get
good legislation, and that's exactly what we've received here,
and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing
on Mr. Gibbon's bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ensign follows:]
Statement of Hon. John E. Ensign, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada
Good morning, Chairman Hansen and other colleagues, it is a
pleasure to be with you today in addressing a very important
issue to the people of Nevada. H.R. 3705, introduced by
Congressman Jim Gibbons and myself provides for the sale of
certain public lands within the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada to the
Clark County Department of Aviation.
Today, the Las Vegas Valley is the fastest growing
metropolitian area in the country with about 5,000 people move
there each month, and millions of visitors each year. About 50
percent of these visitors arrive by way of McCarran
International Airport. As the valley continues to expand, and
the number of international visitors climbs, it becomes
apparent that McCarran Field is nearing its capacity.
H.R. 3705 would designate approximately 6,500 acres of BLM
land for gradual sale to the Clark County Department of
Aviation, some of the land will become a secondary airport
serving the needs of both passengers and cargo for the Las
Vegas metropolitan area, and the rest of the land would be used
to provide surrounding infrastructure and for other industrial
purposes.
The Ivanpah Valley location is ideal for many reasons.
First, it is convenient to Las Vegas, but far enough away as
not to pose a problem to current air traffic patterns with
McCarran Field and Nellis Air Force Base. Second, the location
has the best topography and orientation of any of the possible
sights for an ancillary airport facility, and it is accessible
to both I-15 and the Union Pacific railroad. And finally, there
are minimal environmental concerns with this proposed sight.
H.R. 3705 provides relief to the growth issue that faces
the Las Vegas Valley, it allievates overcrowding at McCarran
Field while supporting the economy of Southern Nevada with new
jobs and additional revenues.
----------
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to make the
public aware of my relationship with Circus Circus Enterprises.
As we all know, the legislation before us today proposes the
sale of federally owned land to the Clark County Department of
Aviation for the development of a reliever airport in the
Ivanpah Valley. The location of this airport will be roughly
six miles from Jean, Nevada where Circus Circus Enterprises
owns and operates two hotel-casinos. My father, Michael Ensign,
is Chief Executive Officer of Circus Circus Enterprises.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Ensign.
Mr. Walker, we'll turn to you.
STATEMENT OF RANDALL H. WALKER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
AVIATION, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Randall
Walker. I am the Director of Aviation for the Clark County
Department of Aviation----
Mr. Hansen. Pull that mike just a tad closer to you,
please, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Walker. [continuing] in Las Vegas, Nevada. I appear
today to testify in strong support of H.R. 3705 which
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey for fair
market value certain lands in the Ivanpah Valley to the Clark
County Department of Aviation to allow us a site for future
construction of an airport to serve southern Nevada.
The role of an airport in any community is to provide the
airport infrastructure and facilities necessary to enable any
and all carriers to serve the community if they choose to do
so. Because Las Vegas has been one of the fastest growing
airports in the Nation, keeping pace with airline passenger
demand has been a significant challenge. McCarran International
Airport passenger traffic since 1990 has grown 64 percent. Half
the visitors who come to Las Vegas now come by air. Air traffic
into Las Vegas has statistically followed the growth of the
hotel industry and the construction of hotel rooms. Before the
year 2000, Las Vegas will add approximately 20,000 hotel rooms
to the inventory. We estimate that every 1,000 hotel rooms will
generate about 275,000 visitors or with the 20,000 hotel rooms,
approximately 6 million new tourists, half of whom will pass
through the McCarran to get into Las Vegas.
Fifty years ago, in 1948, Clark County acquired McCarran
Field on South Las Vegas Boulevard. This once small air field
out in the desert is now surrounded by a vibrant and unique
city. We are proud of the facilities we have constructed on
McCarran Airport and with the opening of the new D terminal
this last week, we will provide sufficient facilities to carry
us approximately 5 years into the future. But after the fades
and D gate is completed, we will not have realistic expansion
opportunities to add additional terminal facilities at our
airport.
We now have four air carrier-capable runways at McCarran,
and that is all that we will ever be able to build.
Fortunately, with our existing runways there is sufficient air
field capacity to allow for additional short and mid-term
growth. However, once that growth gets above 600,000 annual
aircraft operations--we're currently at 474,000 annual
operations--our runway taxiway system will produce cumulative
delays that exceed an average of 40 minutes per aircraft
operation.
It is easy to understand why the airlines who service the
Las Vegas are very sensitive to the incremental system cost
which results from departure and arrival delays. Increasing
delays means higher operational costs attributable to wasted
fuel burned on the taxiway; added crew time and additional
delays at connecting airports. As the operator of McCarran
Airport, we have to be sensitive to delay costs that make it
difficult for airlines to add additional service or to maintain
the existing service that they already provide.
For us to maintain the viability of long-term airline
service to Las Vegas, we need to find an alternative primary
commercial service airport to McCarran. Most of the airspace
north of McCarran is under the control of the Department of
Defense due to the ever-increasing military operations at
Nellis Air Force Base. This has limited our search for new
sites to south of Las Vegas. The only viable site that has
adequate airspace is about 22 miles south of McCarran in the
Ivanpah Valley.
Ivanpah Valley is the only site that will allow for a full
precision instrument approach that will not result in airspace
conflicts with the traffic at McCarran. This site, with the
potential for a north-south conflux of parallel runways, is
unusual because it is both flat and devoid of mountainous
terrains off the ends of the future runways. It is also located
in close proximity to Interstate 15 and Uni-Pacific Railroad
which will enhance intermobile transportation of cargo
opportunities.
It is our plan to develop this airport as needed by the
growth at McCarran. It is likely that the first developments to
move this new airport would be cargo and charter operations
with scheduled airline service eventually following as traffic
continues to grow at McCarran. Notwithstanding the opportunity
for us to obtain Federal land for free under section 505 of the
Airport and Airways Improvement Act, there is a significant
bureaucratic process involved that would take years to
complete.
Now, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are very
anxious to secure this site so that we can do the necessary
planning and environmental work, and we are willing to pay fair
market value for the land which is just a bit over 6,000 acres.
This new airport is absolutely critical for the Clark County
Department of Aviation to fulfill its mission of never allowing
the lack of airport infrastructure to be an impediment to
people coming to Las Vegas; to the Grand Canyon, and to other
destinations in the color country around Las Vegas.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this
important issue, and I'd be glad to answer any questions the
Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Questions from the
panel? Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask
Mr. Culp from the Bureau of Land Management a couple of
questions. How many tortoise are we talking about here?
Mr. Culp. How many tortoise?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes.
Mr. Culp. I saw the figures for the number relocated to
that relocation area west of Interstate 15, and I believe it
was 1,200. Again, as I noted and Mr. Hansen noted, the last map
which was actually an aerial photograph that we received would
avoid the tortoise relocation area.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I notice in your statement you mention
that you don't even have a map. Am I correct the State of
Nevada has not even submitted a map formation of this Valley?
They're asking for about 6,000 acres, and I understand the
location is about 22 miles south of the McCarran Airport? Is
this under the Bureau of Land Management jurisdiction?
Mr. Culp. The area is public land under our jurisdiction
now, yes. And the concern on the map is that actually we have
several maps that are fairly large scale. I believe two maps
and one aerial photograph with boundaries delineated. The
boundaries are somewhat different between those maps, and both
we and the Congress would need a definitive map filed with us
to move forward and avoid some future legal problems.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I notice you cited at least about 10
different areas that you question. I would like to ask Mr.
Walker, I'm sure our good friend from Nevada would not have
introduced this legislation if there was at least some
preliminary discussions or dialogue between the BLM and the
State of Nevada, and, Mr. Walker, I'm sure you're well aware of
some of the considerations that BLM is raising now before the
Subcommittee. I gather that this bill was introduced without
the knowledge of BLM in any way or form?
Mr. Walker. No, that's not correct. We've had extensive
conversations with our local BLM offices. I met with Mr. Pat
Shay personally to indicate that we were going to introduce the
bill; to give him a copy; I gave him a map myself. And, so
we've tried to make sure that we've covered all our bases and
done our homework and consulted with everybody that we felt it
was important to consult with before the bill was introduced.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So, you've done all this with the office
of the BLM in Nevada, but, apparently, it has not reached
Washington. Is this correct, Mr. Culp?
Mr. Culp. No, it's reached Washington, and there certainly
have been consultations in Nevada. I think our position is that
because of some of the issues that I mentioned and the lack of
a really definitive map, that there's more work that we need to
do together.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Mr. Culp, I'm a little surprised,
and I'm sure that Mr. Walker would not have made these
considerations, and I wanted to ask you, you're suggesting here
also that BLM and the FAA be given time to consider what would
be the most appropriate area, and I'd like to ask you if the
BLM and the FAA would be assigned the task of figuring out a
location or size for an additional airport in Nevada, how long
do you think this will take?
Mr. Culp. We're prepared to move very quickly on that. I
can't speak for FAA, but I would say that we recognize that
Congress has an interest in this bill and may want to move
quickly, and we are prepared to do that. I think we're talking
about a matter of a few weeks probably.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I'd like to ask Mr. Walker, how long have
you been holding consultations with the BLM office in Nevada?
Mr. Walker. I think we've been working on this for a couple
of years.
Mr. Faleomavaega. My God.
Mr. Walker. And, as I indicated, we met Mr. Pat Shay, the
Director of BLM, here in Washington several months ago to give
him a copy of the bill and a copy of the map which has changed
slightly since we initially gave that to him, but as far as the
issues that have been raised by BLM, we're well aware of these
issues. We don't think any one of them is insurmountable. For
example--I could go through each one of them--the grazing
rights, if you've seen the dry lakes, there's not a whole lot
of foliage there in the first place, and, second, the county
owns the grazing rights, and this would not be a conflict, and
grazing around an airport outside the parameter fence is not a
problem, so there shouldn't be any conflict, and we could go
through each one of these issues: the power lines, we know
where they're at, and they're not in conflict with the
alignment of the runways; the desert tortoise habitat, we have
a letter from Paul Seltzer, the attorney that has been retained
by the county to deal with desert tortoise habitat issues, and
he indicates that it doesn't appear that this is a concern at
all with the translocation area; the transportationsite--the
Department of Transportation is there on the west side of the
freeway, and we've got a letter from them indicating it's not a
problem; the sky diving operation, that's in an airport we
manage and control. We understand those issues very well, and
we would not do anything to jeopardize those operations. We
need to accommodate all aviation within southern Nevada, and we
think we do a very good job of doing that.
In terms of the fair market value, I think we have an
opportunity--we could go through a bureaucratic process and ask
for it for free. We're asking to pay current fair market value,
but that land out there right now, probably the value is very
limited relative to the rest of the land in southern Nevada,
and what we don't want to do is to bring all the infrastructure
in there and create a huge value for land that now has minimal
value and then turn around and have to pay the higher value
that we've created for the land. That's why we're asking for it
the way we are.
And, so we think that these issues--in terms of the off-
highway vehicle use, for example, that's not an incompatible
use around an airport, and the dust that would be created by
those vehicles, certainly, is a lot less than the wind, the
dust that the wind creates in Las Vegas. We have that all of
the time, and so that's not a problem.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Mr. Walker, my time is running out,
but I would like to give some very strong advice to Mr. Culp
that this issue has been ongoing and been under discussion for
years. This is not something that has just came over, over
night, and so your mentioning of all these areas like the
grazing, the mining, the tortoise, the special recreation
management, it seems like you're throwing a smoke screen here
and not really making a good faith effort to work with the
State officials that the BLM does show good faith in working
together with the officials of the State of Nevada. I'm really,
frankly, disappointed that these issues are brought forth, and
it sounds like you were never being apprised of this three or
months ago, but the fact that this has been under discussion
for years, I'm a little disappointed, Mr. Culp, that the BLM is
giving the members of this Subcommittee this kind of
information. I'm sorry, my time is up.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. Mr. Walker, Mr. Culp said that Clark
County is obligated under the terms of a Federal grant to
continue operations at Jean Airport. I'm assuming that Jean
Airport is a general aviation airport?
Mr. Walker. Yes, we created it as a sports aviation
facility for gliders and aerobatics and things of that nature.
Mr. Hansen. In the event that this other one went in, what
would the airspace problem be? Would there be--have overlapping
traffic patterns? Would we have space that is adequate for both
of them?
Mr. Walker. Yes. Jean is about six nautical miles from the
Ivanpah Valley site. We have a general aviation airport, called
Henderson Executive Terminal which is six miles from McCarran
Airport. One is a visual flight rules airport; the other's an
instrument flight rules, and we developed the airspace so that
they both operate compatibly.
Mr. Hansen. What is the altitude of the traffic pattern at
Jean Airport?
Mr. Walker. Jean Airport has visual flight rules, so it has
to stay under the Class B airspace.
Mr. Hansen. It's all under VFR?
Mr. Walker. Yes.
Mr. Hansen. In the event the southern one went in, would
that necessitate transponders for general aviation at Jean
Airport?
Mr. Walker. No.
Mr. Hansen. Do they have transponders now?
Mr. Walker. No, not at Jean.
Mr. Hansen. You don't think it would?
Mr. Walker. No, I don't believe so. We don't have any----
Mr. Hansen. Would you mind giving me some stuff on the FAA
about that?
Mr. Walker. We don't have any instrument approaches now at
Henderson or North Las Vegas.
Mr. Hansen. The reason I say that is Salt Lake--where I've
spent many hours flying--we all had to put transponders in when
Salt Lake International got a little bigger. So, Sky Park,
which is between Ogden and Salt Lake; Airport No. 2, which is
south of International, and the others, all of those, had to go
to transponders which is, frankly, a pain.
Mr. Walker. Well, we have very good weather in Las Vegas. I
think we have 360 days a year where you can operate under VFR
rules, and so it's not a real problem for our airports. The
only time we have--McCarran is the only place now where they
can do actual instrument landing training, and so we're trying
to find a location at one of our sites where we could have,
actually, a transponder site for general aviation to improve
the--to, basically, move those operations off of McCarran. But
we're working now with the FAA, with the local tower and the
regional people, and the military. We have a committee that's
looking at all of the airspace in southern Nevada to come up
with the best airspace possible, and the Ivanpah Valley is one
of the issues that's on the table. So, we're working with
everybody to come up with the airspace allocation which serves
the needs of everybody--the military, the general aviation, and
the commercial aircraft.
Mr. Hansen. Would Jean Airport have to change their
practice area which is allocated to them by the FAA?
Mr. Walker. In terms of the sky divers, there may have to
be a reallocation of where their jumps are. We just reallocated
them from the northwest, because they used to operate out of
north Las Vegas, but because of the significant development in
the northwest which was precipitated by land exchanges by the
BLM, we had to move the sky divers to another area. They're
very important to us, and we will find them a location to
operate somewhere. We have 8,000 square miles of land in
southern Nevada, 82 percent which is owned by the Federal
Government. Certainly, there is a site close to Jean where the
sky divers can practice their trade in southern Nevada.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Culp, you gave a laudatory reason why the
BLM has difficulty with this. You said that there's historical
off-highway vehicle use. Now, I commend you for this, but I'm
just kind of curious in a way, you're defending off-highway
vehicle use on public lands in this bill, however, over in the
State of Utah--your next door neighbor there--you folks are
trying to stop it. Why the inconsistency?
Mr. Culp. Mr. Chairman, we go through a planning process
for each area to determine where that kind of use is compatible
with the resource values in the area--I am not immediately
familiar with the area in Utah that you're speaking about--but
that's how the process works, and that's how these in Nevada
were designated as appropriate for off-highway vehicles.
Mr. Hansen. Frankly, being somewhat familiar between the
two States, I cannot see much difference. Every place there's
off-road use in BLM under H.R. 1500, proposed by some of our
environmental friends, BLM has gone with them lock, stock, and
barrel, and some of that area has been used for off-road
vehicles for as long as I can remember. So, it would, in my
opinion, fall under the highway and historical use. Anyway, I
would really be curious to know the answer to that when you get
to it.
Mr. Culp. I'll be happy to look into it.
Mr. Hansen. Would you, specifically, personally, send me
something on that?
Mr. Culp. I certainly will.
Mr. Hansen. Don't send it here. Send it to my personal
staff at 2466 Rayburn. I would like to read it.
I promised earlier that, when the sponsor of the bill
arrived, that we would turn to him for his opening statement.
So, honoring that obligation, Mr. Gibbons.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your
kind patience in regard to my tardiness, and I do apologize for
being late. In order to make this as expedited as possible, I
would ask unanimous consent to have my opening remarks
submitted for the record rather than be said.
Mr. Hansen. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada
Mr. Chairman:
I would like to thank you for allowing this Committee to
hear H.R. 3705, the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands
Transfer Act.
As you may know, Las Vegas, Nevada, is the fastest growing
area in the United States, and because 87 percent to 92 percent
of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government, it makes
expansion for many of our communities almost impossible.
More than 20,000 new homes were built in the Las Vegas
Valley last year, and this influx of new residents has put
great pressure on the infrastructure of the entire region.
Fortunately, H.R. 3705 addresses the issue of expansion and
infrastructure and prepares Clark County for the 21st century.
As Las Vegas continues to grow a greater demand is put on
its airport.
Currently, passengers traveling through Las Vegas's
McCarran Airport account for approximately 50 percent of the
annual visitors to Las Vegas.
And as the Valley's resorts increasingly become
international travel destinations, this percentage can be
expected to climb putting a burdensome strain on McCarran
airport.
That is why this legislation is so important to the Las
Vegas Valley.
The new Ivanpah Valley Airport will attract air cargo
flights that now wish to use McCarran, thus freeing-up
McCarran's airspace and runway capacity.
The new airport will also serve as an alternative for
charter flight operations, where the passengers can be bused to
downtown Las Vegas in a short amount of time.
Likewise, the geographical location for this airport is
also well suited.
The proposed Ivanpah Valley Airport site is located on
approximately 6,650 acres of federally owned land thirty miles
south of the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
Ivanpah will be far enough away from McCarran Airport and
Nellis Air Force Base to be free of flight restrictions.
It has a close proximity to Interstate Highway 15 and the
Union Pacific Railroad which will provide excellent intermodal
and multimodal opportunities for passenger and air cargo
activities.
And lastly, it is surrounded by vacant Federal land which
will give Clark County an opportunity to protect the Airport
from incompatible land uses.
As McCarran reaches its practical capacity, H.R. 3705
becomes necessary to accommodate the growing Las Vegas Valley
and its air passenger and air cargo industry.
With that Mr. Chairman, I would once again like to thank
you for holding this hearing on the Ivanpah Valley Airport
Public Lands Transfer Act, a bill that is very important to
Southern Nevada and its future.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the
opportunity to exercise a question here of the panel if it's
within your will.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. I wanted to address the issue of
mining claims to Mr. Culp. How many of the mining claims that
you are concerned about are currently active in the area?
Mr. Culp. I don't have that information, Mr. Gibbons.
There's one section of the land that has claims on it.
Mr. Gibbons. Yes, but isn't it true that those mining
claims are inactive?
Mr. Culp. I'll be very happy to check that. If that's the
information you have----
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Chairman, I would also wish that this
Committee accede to your request in submitting, perhaps,
written questions that they can answer and provide back for us
detailed explanations and answers to those written questions in
regard to the mining claim issue.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back the questions and
have the written question submitted for the record.
Mr. Hansen. Thank the gentleman from Nevada. The gentleman
from Minnesota, Mr. Vento.
Mr. Vento. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to come by
and participate in the markup, but I guess you reached some
accord that we're going to work on it further.
Mr. Hansen. That's true. We decided it was a work in
process, and we reported it out without recommendation to the
Full Committee.
Mr. Vento. I understand that. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Culp, I
think that Representative Gibbons is asking whether any of
these mining claims are patented claims? Or don't you know that
either?
Mr. Culp. I don't know that either.
Mr. Vento. OK. Well, I think that would be sort of a
telling point, because that means, of course, they've been
perfected, and there's cost and maybe some value to them.
Mr. Gibbons. Will the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Vento. Yes, sure.
Mr. Gibbons. A patented mining claim, of course, is private
property, and would, therefore, not be under the jurisdiction
of BLM, because that's the same patent you would get for a fee
simple----
Mr. Vento. None of these have been patented----
Mr. Gibbons. So, that would be the answer to your question
in that regard, but I appreciate your input.
Mr. Vento. Well, I just would like to know what the status
is. I thought, perhaps, if they had reached that point, but I
didn't know they were distinguishing between claims. Obviously,
you have to buy them out then, but apparently that won't be
necessary.
The overall issue here is, first of all, you suggest in
your statement you don't know if it's 2,000 or 20,000 acres,
Mr. Culp. Mr. Walker has said it's 6,000 acres. Since we don't
have a map we really don't know what specific area that we're
speaking of here. Is that correct?
Mr. Culp. We certainly know generally. We've received, as I
said, two large scale maps and then an aerial photograph with
the boundaries delineated. They are somewhat different.
Mr. Vento. Well, I don't understand--I looked at the
activities that you suggest here that they're roads. Of course,
I think our colleague from Utah, the chairman, was pointing out
that there's a special recreation management area that's been
apparently administratively designated here. I don't know if
they have any special recreational management areas for off-
road vehicles in Utah or not--but the issue here is what is the
overall land plan for this area? Is there something that
fundamentally conflicts with it? I mean, there are conflicts,
but are these the only conflicts that you have here for the
land?
Mr. Culp. We have a recent resource management plan for the
area that calls for retention in Federal ownership for----
Mr. Vento. A retention of this particular area.
Mr. Culp. Correct.
Mr. Vento. And, so are there other areas that--in Nevada,
obviously, it's a State where there's 67 or 70 percent
ownership. I think we shifted even a little more over here
and----
Mr. Gibbons. Eighty-seven.
Mr. Vento. But the--89 percent. Well, we keep gaining more
of it. But the issue is it isn't like we're an occupying force,
but sometimes we're treated that way, I guess. The issue is,
are there some other areas that have been designated for use
for aviation for future development that are different than
this site?
Mr. Culp. None that we have identified. I want to be clear:
I think that, in general, this area, as Mr. Walker testified,
may be the best there is. We have to deal with these conflicts
as best we can.
Mr. Vento. I'm just wondering if there's some overall plan.
This hasn't been studied for wilderness, is that correct? Has
this area been studied for wilderness?
Mr. Culp. It would have been, certainly. There is no
wilderness area within the----
Mr. Vento. It hasn't been studied for it. I mean hasn't BLM
just gone through a wilderness study on most of the land? Was
this area studied or not?
Mr. Culp. We have done studies and reviewed them. I'm sure
this area was part of that, and we do not have a conflict with
a designated or--what's the other term for a wilderness--
wilderness review area.
Mr. Vento. OK. My point is, of course, that it has off-road
vehicles and some other activities on it that sound like
they're in conflict, in any case, so it likely wouldn't be--at
least part of it wouldn't be recommended. I don't know how much
of that--since you don't have a map, obviously, we'd end up
with, but you agree now, that it is 6,000 acres not 22,000 or
20,000. Is that right, Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker. Yes, it's never been 20,000 acres. We provided
a map some time ago to the BLM, and it's always been around
6,000 acres.
Mr. Vento. So, when do you expect a sequence--I mean, I
understand that under law you suggest that this could be
granted without cost, but you're willing to incur a cost in
terms of providing certainty, because the amount of money would
not be great. I mean, what would the cost per acre be here?
What do you anticipate?
Mr. Walker. Well, obviously, we'd have to have an appraisal
through the BLM process, but we anticipate it would be less
than $1,000 an acre.
Mr. Vento. Less than $1,000 an acre. And your suggesting
that that be determined within 6 months and then the cost of
that be frozen and paid off over a period of 20 years. What is
the purpose for that? If this airport is going to be developed,
wouldn't it be developed in the next 5 to 10 years?
Mr. Walker. Actually, what we would like to do is take
down--and that's probably where the 2,000 acres came from in
somebody's discussion. Two thousand acres are what we would
need initially to develop the airfield itself, and then the
rest of the land could be drawn down as needed to develop the
support and the infrastructure around it.
Mr. Vento. Will that develop the entire complex of housing
or industrial park of whatever else?
Mr. Walker. Correct. Right, we'd need cargo facilities and
other support facilities such as flight kitchens and others
things that are associated with an airport. If an appraisal
came in the way we would think it would be based on the land
values in Las Vegas and whether it's situation in an
undeveloped area and it, indeed, comes under $1,000 an acre, we
would probably take the land down in 2 or 3 years, maximum
time. We're just trying to protect ourselves if it comes in a
lot higher than that, we would like to be able to take it over
time. We need to get the land so that we can do the proper
planning studies; coordinate the airspace with the FAA; do our
environmental work, and we think it would be appropriate to
control the site before spend all of our money.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, just one more question--I know I'm
beyond my time here--but the BLM suggests that this ought to be
part of the regular process of the administrative planning
process where the BLM and the FAA are the proper forum for
addressing the county's needs. Has there been such a forum in
place?
Mr. Walker. Well, the last plan that we're aware of was
done 8 years ago, and Las Vegas is such a fast and dynamic
growing area that we felt it would be best to come and ask
Congress for this special legislation to allow us to buy this
land at fair market value for this purpose so that we could
plan ahead. We've seen what's happened in the last 20 years in
Las Vegas, and if continues into the next 20 years, if we don't
do something now, this site will not be available for an
airport, because there will be too many conflicts developed.
And so what we're trying to do, as local government, trying to
be good planners; plan ahead and make sure that we have the
facilities in place to make sure that the community functions
for the benefit of its citizens. So, we think this is the right
process.
Mr. Vento. Well, are there any reverters or anything in
this, if this is used for the airport it's one thing, but it
would obviously be your property, so it could be used for a
variety of things afterwards.
Mr. Walker. My understanding is the way the bill's written,
it would have to be used for airport purposes.
Mr. Vento. OK.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Culp, I just have
a couple of questions on getting to the mining claim. We have
mining claims all over Nevada and southern Nevada on BLM land,
and when we do exchanges we have to deal with these mining
claims, and we've been able to effectively deal with those
mining claims. Wouldn't you agree with that?
Mr. Culp. Yes, yes, I would. I would make a point that, as
I'm sure you know, mining claims have value whether they've
been patented or not.
Mr. Ensign. Right, but we've been able to deal with those.
Mr. Culp. But we've been able to deal with them.
Mr. Ensign. Right, and there's nothing out there from what
we've looked at--I don't know if anything the BLM has looked
at--that would indicate that there would be any problem dealing
with the mining claims that we have out there.
Mr. Culp. No, sir.
Mr. Ensign. OK. Do you anticipate--looking at this bill, is
there anything that's a show stopper in there? Is there
anything that the BLM says, ``No, this is absolutely--we can't
live with this?'' Is there anything in this bill that BLM
absolutely can't live with?
Mr. Culp. I think there are probably three. One is the
issue of a definitive, officially filed map that can be
referenced.
Mr. Ensign. OK, but that could be dealt with.
Mr. Culp. That can be dealt with.
Mr. Ensign. OK.
Mr. Culp. The appraisal issue which I believe also could be
dealt with could be a show stopper, because, again, if this
land is taken down over an extended period of time, its value
regardless of the development of the airport can be expected to
change and probably change significantly over 20 years.
Mr. Ensign. Just because I'm pretty familiar with this
area, why would it change? There's no other private land
available out there to build any kind of infrastructure to
increase the value of that. We talked about that in this
Committee when we were talking about the southern Nevada lands
bill. Land in the desert--this is no water rights; this is no--
this is as barren of land--as a matter of fact, Mr. Vento, when
you were talking about this land, if you could see this land,
this is as barren a land as you can possibly get. Most of it is
a dry lake bed that--alkali--that nothing grows on, and this
land is as worthless a land as you can possibly imagine. Why
would this land increase in value if nothing else is done? If
the county doesn't do this, take this land down--the BLM is not
in the business of improving the land to increase the value--
so, if the county government doesn't do this, there's no other
private land out there, how can you increase the value of this
land over 20--I don't care if it's 100 years? In other words,
the only way that this land would be improved in value is if
the county does something and that what the county is trying to
do is protect itself. If it increases the value of the land,
the county itself, it doesn't want to have to pay for that
increased value because of what it did.
Mr. Culp. We certainly recognize that point and don't
believe the county should have to pay for value that it
creates. Some of the solutions we would suggest is, perhaps,
using some kind of an index for other land in the area not
influenced by the development of the airport itself or
certainly one option would be for the county to take the whole
area, initially, based on this first appraisal. I can
understand why they did not----
Mr. Ensign. Do you understand what they're trying to do
here. I mean, let's use some common sense here. Let's don't
think like bureaucracy sometimes thinks. I realize what
regulations are. They've looked at the regulation; they've
looked at how all of this thing goes about, and they say that
they can get the land for free. It would take a long time to do
it under bureaucratic practices, and so all they're trying to
do is say, ``You know what? We'll even pay some money. It's
worth a certain cost. We just want to make sure that cost isn't
outrageous, so we want to build in some security for us, and
that security is based on the appraisal, we want to make sure
we can pay it out over 20 years in case it comes in higher than
what we expect.'' That's all they're trying to do here. This is
land they could get, if they went through the slow bureaucratic
process, for free. So, why would the BLM--this is a common
sense thing--why would the BLM object to that? I just don't
understand that?
Mr. Culp. Again, I think the point is that this is such a
rapidly developing area that it's----
Mr. Ensign. Not this area. This area is ever going to be
rapidly developing. The only land is Stateline and Jean that's
privately owned. The rest of it is all BLM land; it cannot
develop.
Mr. Culp. It wouldn't be developed under the current land
use plan, that's correct.
Mr. Ensign. So, how can it rapidly develop? This is 25
miles from Las Vegas.
Mr. Culp. I guess what I would like to do is go back 20
years on some other areas and see what's----
Mr. Ensign. But there's no water. I mean, there's some
obvious things here that this land can't be developed. I know
this area very well. There's no water in this valley to do this
with, and if you don't have water in the desert, you can't
develop.
Mr. Culp. There is--I assume the airport has dealt with
that issue.
Mr. Walker. Yes, we've talked to the water district. We
would have plans to bring water out to the area, it would not
be inexpensive.
Mr. Ensign. That's kind of the point is the county has to
do it.
Mr. Vento. Well, Mr. Chairman, one other comment----
Mr. Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Wait a minute. The gentleman's time has
expired. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, just one--I think the other issue
here, of course, is that this is a blocked up Federal area of
BLM land and how it's managed, and I understand the necessity
of trying to assist development and especially in a rapidly
developing area, but the point is that this will influence all
the land and activities around it, and, of course, you know
there have been some pretty intense efforts to move water into
areas. I think what you would anticipate is it does change the
landscape here and probably the dynamics of what happens with
the economy and the desire to do some development around that
airport outside the 6,000 acres which will impact on what
happens with BLM. So, it's not really your problem, but it is a
problem, I think, in terms of trying to--the citizens of Nevada
ought to look, is that what they want? Is this the best policy?
And, of course, the planning process and review would have an
opportunity to discuss that, but we're sort of doing--I mean,
the effort here ends up short circuiting that process.
Mr. Ensign. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. Vento. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. Ensign. What we are talking about, what the BLM is
trying to say, though, is that development in the area could
increase the value of the land, not what the county is doing
here with this airport. They're saying other development could
increase the value of the land. That's why they had this
problem with the 20 years, but there's nothing that's going to
develop out there if the county doesn't develop this property,
and that's what the county is saying.
Mr. Vento. I am not concerned--I might say, I think there
should be less concern on our part in the fact that the land
would be conveyed at no cost for this particular public purpose
with reverters, so it's going to be conveyed at some cost with,
apparently, some sort of reverter in terms of how it's used.
But I think the broader question is not one that necessarily
you are addressing, but it's one that will face any public land
manager and that is the adjacent land to this and the whole
area, because, administratively, it makes it more difficult. Of
course, we're not in the business here just to make easy for
land managers. We need to do what's right in terms of providing
and according the economic and the necessary transportation
development for the State.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for
one comment.
Mr. Vento. Sure.
Mr. Hansen. We'll now start another round. Mr. Walker, why
don't you just do this under section 505 of the Airport and
Airways Improvement Act?
Mr. Walker. It would take a long time, and we would like to
get the land and start our planning process now, and so we
would prefer to pay what we believe is going to be a reasonable
value for the land once the appraisal comes in; get the land,
and avoid that long bureaucratic process that is established to
obtain that land under that process.
Mr. Hansen. You would get it free that way.
Mr. Walker. Yes, but free is not always best when it takes
a long time.
Mr. Hansen. I've never seen BLM really move on at a break-
neck speed, you know. They don't exactly--I think that their
new emblem ought to be the desert tortoise, because that's
basically how we get things done at the BLM. No disrespect to
our friends down there; we gave them those laws, but they don't
exactly move at a great speed.
Mr. Walker. Well, then you have two Federal bureaucracies
that we would have to deal with in this as well--the FAA and
the BLM--and then you just compound that problem, and so we
feel it's better if the land values come in the way we
anticipated, we think it's more--actually, probably more cost-
effective for us just to buy the land.
Mr. Hansen. Oh, I see. Let me direct a question to my
friend from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Gibbons is a lawyer, a
geologist, an airline pilot, and a fighter pilot, so I think--
--
Mr. Gibbons. When I figure out what I want to be when I
grow up, Mr. Chairman, I'll let you know.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hansen. Pick one, will you? Anyway, out of that, not
anywhere in your category, but having put a few hundred hours
at the yoke, Jean Airport, would that be affected substantially
by putting this one in? In other words, aerospace practice
areas, transponders, all that kind of stuff.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that approach
corridors would have to be constructed depending upon the
terrain and other rules that the FAA has in establishing
certain parameters for approach and departure corridors in a
busy airport area. It would be my understanding that this would
be done in concert with the existing Jean Airport so that no
conflict or impact on Jean would either prevent this airport
from being constructed or minimizing the importance of Jean
Airport.
Mr. Hansen. By any chance, does the gentleman know where
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is coming from on
this issue?
Mr. Gibbons. No.
Mr. Hansen. Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker. I don't believe they've taken a position, to
our knowledge, on this issue at all.
Mr. Hansen. I see. The gentleman from America Samoa.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walker, I
wanted to ask a question again. I'm sure that this issue has
taken the officials of Nevada years to undertake. Have you
considered any other options beside this valley or this area
that is located 22 miles south of Las Vegas for airport
development?
Mr. Walker. Yes, we hired a consultant to do an analysis
for us of what are possible locations for a future airport
site, and this was identified as the best site. Unfortunately,
for us, depending on how you look at it, fortunately, for other
uses, we have Nellis Air Force Base and, basically, five miles
north of McCarran is a wall of airspace for the Department of
Defense, and so we cannot look in that direction at all. The
airplanes aren't even allowed to fly into that space. The only
other place that was looked at was a place called the El Dorado
Valley which is close to Boulder City which is farther away
than this site, and that's been recently acquired by Boulder
City, and they're not interested in having a commercial airport
over there. Plus, it would be much more difficult with the
mountainous terrain around it, so--and, plus, it's desert
tortoise habitat on top of all of that. So, this is the best
site in terms of terrain; in terms of no conflicts with the
mountains; in terms of proximity to Las Vegas, and for the
minimal environmental issues that are attached to this land
relative to other choices. So, when we weighed all of the
different potential sites, of which there are not many, this is
clearly the best site.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In the process of your consultation, can
you site exactly approximately when did you first raise this
issue with the officials of BLM in Nevada?
Mr. Walker. With the local office, I know we've been
talking with them, like I said, for a couple of years on this
issue, and I personally met with Pat Shea, the Director of BLM,
approximately, I would guess it's been 3 months ago to indicate
to him that we were going to ask our congressional delegation
to introduce this bill; provided him a copy of the map, and
generally explained what the issues were. So, we've been having
this dialogue for some time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Now, as you know, the gentleman, Mr.
Culp, has testified that no map has been provided to his
office, and this concerns me as to how extensive your research
has been in actually giving them a map to work on. Is this
true? Or this is not?
Mr. Walker. Well, we haven't provided the map specifically
to Mr. Culp, but we have provided maps to the local office; to
the Director; to this Committee. If they would tell me who I
should provide a map to, I'd be glad to send them one.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Culp, I am not putting any blame on
you for your testimony this morning, but I have to restate my
other disappointment with your friends at the BLM office in
Nevada for not giving you the right information about the
consultations that have been going on with the State officials
of Nevada about the issues that you've raised here this
morning.
You said earlier that it would probably take a couple of
weeks for the BLM and the FAA to conduct a study or whatever, a
feasibility, to see what would be the possible area that an
airport could be developed as expressed by the needs of the
officials from the State of Nevada. Am I correct in your
opinion that you can do this in a couple of weeks?
Mr. Culp. That was my testimony, yes, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think that you can--this whole
thing can be done administratively without going through a
congressional legislation?
Mr. Culp. No, I believe it does require legislation. I
would like to add one point, too: the last map that we got was
last Wednesday after our official testimony was submitted, so
this really has been a fast moving and changing target which is
fine, but it's not like we've been dragging our feet.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. I just wanted to make sure, for the
record, that we're not putting you too much on a tight rope
here. I wanted--I suppose one of the main issues that we're
going to--that's going to be very--I wouldn't say controversial
but certainly one for discussion will be the fair market value
issue as outlined in the provisions of the bill when it
addresses that issue, but I just wanted your commitment that
you say that in a couple of weeks the BLM and the FAA can work
this thing out with the officials of the State of Nevada?
Mr. Culp. We're prepared to work with the Subcommittee and
with the county folks and the State folks very quickly, yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. As you know, the entire State--I mean,
the congressional delegation from Nevada fully supports the
proposed legislation. What kind of a time table do you think it
will take for the BLM to come through with its commitments and
see when we can get this resolved?
Mr. Culp. If we can sit down quickly together, particularly
the folks in Nevada, with our State director, Bob Abbey and his
people, I feel confident that what I said earlier about a
matter of weeks is something that we can live with. Two weeks
is kind of tight, but we can work hard at it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How about a 4-month period?
Mr. Culp. That's more than enough, I believe.
Mr. Faleomavaega. That will resolve the entire issue. Does
that give you enough leeway to really get this thing moving?
Mr. Culp. Well, 4 months probably would not for the
Congress if they want to move this legislation this year.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. The gentleman from Nevada that sponsored the
bill, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice, Mr. Culp,
that you're saying this is a fast moving and changing target.
Over the period of the last 3 months, how far has this target
moved since you were first informed of it?
Mr. Culp. It's hard to answer that question. I would say
that we've narrowed down the location which----
Mr. Gibbons. In terms of--we've narrowed it down in terms
of what? Miles from where it was originally proposed? What?
Mr. Culp. Acres, miles.
Mr. Gibbons. So, they've moved it?
Mr. Culp. We have--as I mentioned earlier--we have, I
believe resolved one of the most significant concerns which was
the potential impact on this desert tortoise relocation area,
and that's significant progress.
Mr. Walker. Congressman Gibbons, we originally had a few
hundred feet to the west of I-15 in the original proposal when
it came to our attention this was a desert tortoise relocation
area. We adjusted the map to stay on the east side of I-15 to
avoid that conflict, and that's, to my knowledge, the only
change that's happened since we produced the original map.
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Walker, you also--your Department of
Aviation is in control of the Jean Airport, are you not?
Mr. Walker. That is correct.
Mr. Gibbons. Do you see any conflict in light of the fact
that you also have Henderson Airport which is six miles from
McCarran International that some situation would occur in terms
of establishing instrument flight rule patterns, departure
corridors, arrival corridors in McCarran is the same situation
with Jean, and tell me what you think might be a problem?
Mr. Walker. Well, we work very well with the FAA and the
local tower to create the--to develop the airspace around the
valley that accommodates both commercial aircraft and the
general aviation aircraft. We've done that at Henderson which
has a six mile nautical difference between the two airports.
We've developed the Class B airspace in such a way that the
airplanes taking off and landing at Henderson could do so by
staying under the Class B airspace and not create a conflict
with the commercial aircraft. We believe we can do the same
thing at Jean. As I indicated before, we now have an ongoing
study with regional people from Los Angeles, our local tower,
and the Department of Defense to look at the entire airspace in
the valley to be able to come up with a long term plan that
will accommodate all of these issues.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you. Mr. Culp, you mentioned the desert
tortoise issue. Are you aware that the Clark County Desert
Tortoise Conservation Planning Committee has recently sent a
letter to our Senators indicating that they see no obvious
conflict between the proposed airport; the conservation
measures set forth in the desert conservation plan; the
critical habitat for the desert tortoise; the desert tortoise
ACECs, or the desert tortoise translocation areas? Are you
aware of that?
Mr. Culp. I have not seen those letters, but I am very
pleased to hear about that, and I think that probably relates
to the shift in the location.
Mr. Gibbons. I'm sure we can get you a copy of that.
Perhaps, that would help alleviate the Department's concern
over the desert tortoise issue in this area.
With those issues resolve, Mr. Culp, do you see any final
obstacle that would prevent the BLM from supporting the
transfer of this land?
Mr. Culp. I think that we have still with us the fair
market value issue to work out one way or another, and I think
that's probably the most significant one that's left.
Mr. Gibbons. And, personally, from my standpoint, I see
that as probably the least of all obstacles to overcome,
because we can establish fair market value existing today for
the property. I don't see a fair market value whether it's 10
years, 20 years, or 100 years, as being a difficult situation.
I mean, here we are, the county is paying for its own
development, and the fair market value--maybe we should ask
you, for the record, what is your definition of fair market
value?
Mr. Culp. We'd be happy to provide that.
Mr. Gibbons. Does the fair market value issue--you don't
have a concept today here with you that you could give us?
Mr. Culp. It would be based on our--as Mr. Walker said--
based on our standard appraisal procedures. The issue really is
not fair market value today, I don't think. It's the provision
that allows for the take down of the land over 20 years and the
changes that would occur.
Mr. Gibbons. So, what would be your solution to the
problem, if I may?
Mr. Culp. There are several possible solutions. One is for
the county to consider taking the entire property now. Another
is to include in the legislation some sort of index in the
provision that would attempt to isolate increases in value due
to the construction of the airport itself but would allow for
adjustment of values for future take down.
Mr. Gibbons. This just seems to me that you want to be the
beneficiary of the hard work and improvements of the county in
this area. You want to take advantage of the improved price as
time goes on. You're not willing to give them the value of the
land that exists today without the development, because without
the development your land wouldn't be any higher in value, but
you want to take advantage of it. I think you're trying to have
your cake and eat it too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Thank you. This concludes this hearing. We
thank our panel for being with us, and we now are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Pete Culp, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and
Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3705, the
Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act, a bill that
provides for the transfer of certain public lands to the Clark
County Department of Aviation. Although the concept of an
airport at this location may have merit, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) can not support H.R. 3705 in its present form.
H.R. 3705 provides for the conveyance of lands to the Clark
County Department of Aviation over a period of 20 years. The
lands are to be used for an airport facility and associated
industrial and commercial development. The lands are to be
conveyed over this 20-year period of time on an as needed basis
to the Department of Aviation. Market value for all conveyances
are to be based on appraised values determined within 6 months
of the passage of the legislation. The lands will be withdrawn
from entry under the mining laws. Although no maps have been
provided, we understand the lands are located a few miles south
of Jean, Nevada.
I would like to discuss the primary concerns that we have
with H.R. 3705. Our principal concern with the bill is the
conflict that will be created with current land use in the
area. In this general area, there are a variety of third-party
rights and land uses that conflict with the proposed airport
use. One section of land is encumbered by mining claims, the
entire area is within a grazing allotment, the Nevada
Department of Transportation has two mineral material sites for
acquiring gravel for road maintenance in the area, three major
power lines and a utility corridor bisect the site, and the
area is Desert Tortoise habitat. In addition to providing
tortoise habitat, the lands west of Interstate 15 serve as a
translocation site for tortoise that are affected by
development elsewhere in Clark County. This area is a
historical Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use area and portions of
the lands have been designated as a Special Recreation
Management Area. There are several OHV loop areas between Primm
and Jean that would be eliminated by this proposal. We assume
that the airport authority would not desire OHV use near the
airport due to the dust created. This area is also used for sky
diving which clearly would be eliminated if a new airport is
constructed. For all of these reasons, this area is identified
in the BLM's Stateline Resource Management Plan as lands to be
retained in Federal ownership.
Another significant issue is the conveyance of lands at
less than fair market value. The bill requires the Department
of Aviation to pay for the lands that are to be conveyed
piecemeal over a period of twenty years at the market value
determined immediately after passage of the bill. This means
that lands being conveyed 15 or 18 years from now will be
conveyed at a 1998 market value, assuming passage of this bill
this year. Land values can change significantly over that
period of time. The bill should be modified to base the values
of public lands on fair market value at the time of conveyance.
A third issue of concern is the fact that we do not have a
map that shows the lands involved. We have only been able to
review a small map showing the proposed site, but we have
received nothing official. Not having on file the map referred
to in Section 2(a) of this bill causes two problems. First an
unofficial small-scale map is not sufficient to offer the
Subcommittee a detailed discussion of issues that may exist on
the ground. The map we have seen shows an area of 32 square
miles as the airport site. About 2,000 acres are the airport
and development lands, 4,560 acres are reserved for an
Industrial Center and 13,830 acres are buffer zone. The lines
differentiating these areas are not legible but seem to follow
natural features rather than legal boundaries. As you can see,
we are not sure if this bill involves the conveyance of the
2,000 acres identified as airport and development lands or all
the acres identified amounting to more than 20,000 acres of
public lands.
It is also important to note that on March 5, 1998, the
District Court for the District of Columbia, in its decision in
Coast Alliance v. Babbitt, essentially nullified section 220 of
the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996,
because maps referenced in that section were not on file on the
date of enactment of that Act. We, therefore, believe it is
essential for the Committee to work with the BLM to develop a
dated and officially filed map prior to the markup of this
legislation.
As the map is developed, we would ask that consideration be
given to identifying boundaries that follow cadastral survey
lines in order to allow for conveyances of lands without the
time and expense of surveys. It is also requested that the
above identified resource and land use conflicts be avoided in
preparation of the map if possible.
Another concern deals with the withdrawal of the public
lands. The bill withdraws the lands from the mining laws, while
not affecting the existing mining claims. There is no provision
for a sunset of the withdrawal at the expiration of the Act or
at such time as the Department of Aviation declares that all
the desired lands have been conveyed. As written, this
provision requires the BLM to go through the time-consuming
administrative process to terminate the withdrawal.
Finally, we note that Clark County, as a recipient of
Federal grants to construct the Jean Airport, a general
aviation airport that opened two years ago near Ivanpah Valley,
is obligated by the grant terms to operate and maintain the
airport for its useful life. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) informally advises that operations by
large aircraft at an Ivanpah Valley airport site, as envisioned
by Clark County, could likely conflict with the general
aviation activity at Jean.
The administration believes, however, that the issues that
I have identified can best be resolved and should be resolved
in the context of the administrative planning processes of the
BLM and the FAA. Clark County's efforts to plan for the future
commercial aviation needs of the Las Vegas metropolitan area
are commendable. We recognize that initiating the preliminary
planning now will ensure the county's ability to provide for
air service for the region in the future and, therefore, stand
ready to assist the county in every way possible. Nonetheless,
we strongly believe that administrative planning processes of
the BLM and the FAA are the proper and desirable forum for
addressing the county's needs.
That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any
questions.
------
Statement of Randall H. Walker, Director, Department of Aviation, Clark
County, Nevada
Mr. Chairman, my name is Randall Walker and I am the
Director of Aviation for the Clark County Department of
Aviation in Las Vegas, Nevada. I appear today to testify in
strong support of H.R. 3705, which authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to convey for fair market value, certain lands in
the Ivanpah valley to the Clark County Department of Aviation
to allow us a site for the future construction of an airport to
serve southern Nevada.
The role of the airport in any community is to provide the
airport infrastructure and facilities necessary to enable any
and all air carriers to serve the community if they choose to
do so. Because Las Vegas has been one of the fastest growing
airports in the nation, keeping pace with airline passenger
demand has been a significant challenge. At McCarran
International Airport, passenger traffic since 1990 has grown
64 percent.
Las Vegas is fortunate. We have direct service to over 50
communities and unlike hub airports, we are not dependent upon
any single carrier to maintain this level of air service. Our
airport system consists of Las Vegas McCarran International
Airport, the tenth largest airport in the United States, the
North Las Vegas Airport, which is the 47th largest airport in
the country, the Henderson Executive Airport, an important
corporate reliever airport for McCarran, the Jean Airport, a
sport aviation complex, and the Overton and Searchlight
Airports, two general utility airports in rural parts of Clark
County. The Department of Aviation operates, as I have
mentioned several smaller airports in our airport system. The
development of these smaller airports has allowed aircraft
operations at our major airport, McCarran, to accommodate
primarily large air carrier type traffic instead of having our
limited airfield and airspace available become congested with
smaller, slower, commuter and general aviation traffic.
Providing first class small airport airport alternatives to
McCarran for the smaller, slower aircraft has been crucial to
our strategy of keeping delays low at McCarran.
Half the people who come to southern Nevada now come by
air. Air traffic into Las Vegas has statistically followed the
construction of hotel rooms. Before the year 2000, Las Vegas
will add approximately 12,000 more rooms to the inventory. We
estimate that every thousand new hotel rooms will generate
275,000 visitors or an annual total of 6 million new tourists,
half of whom will pass through McCarran.
Seventy eight years ago when Randall Henderson landed his
small airplane on a dirt runway, air service to Las Vegas was
initiated. Fifty years ago in 1948, Clark County acquired
McCarran field on south Las Vegas Boulevard. Once a small
airfield out in the desert, McCarran is now surrounded by the
Las Vegas Strip to the West, the University of Nevada Las Vegas
to the north, extensive residential, industrial and commercial
development to the east and by U.S. Interstate 215 and the
Union Pacific Railroad to the south. We cannot expand beyond
our present acreage to accommodate the growth we anticipate in
the years ahead.
We are proud of the facilities we have constructed at
McCarran Airport and with the opening of the new ``D'' gates
terminal last weekend, we will have constructed over $1.5
billion of new facilities and infrastructure to not only
accommodate, but to stay significantly ahead of this explosive
growth. The new ``D'' gates will provide sufficient facilities
to carry us five years into the future. The ``D'' gates
terminal is located, however, on one of the last spots of
aircraft accessible land at McCarran. After the future phases
of the ``D'' gates are complete, we will not have realistic
expansion alternatives to add additional terminal facilities at
the airport.
We now have four air carrier capable runways at McCarran,
and due to space constraints, that is all we will ever have
room for. Fortunately, with our existing four runways, there is
sufficient airfield capacity to allow for additional short and
mid term growth. However, once that growth gets above 600,000
annual aircraft operations, (we are currently at 474,000) our
runway/taxiway system will produce cumulative delays that
exceed an average of forty minutes per aircraft operation.
These estimates have been prepared by the Federal Aviation
Administration and are contained in the recent report, Capacity
Enhancement Plan for Las Vegas McCarran International Airport,
a copy of which I am submitting for the record. Simply put, we
are running out of room at McCarran Airport.
I would like to briefly explain a little bit about the
economics of airline service to Las Vegas. For a number of
different reasons, Las Vegas is one of the least profitable
destinations for the scheduled airlines to serve. This is due
to the fact that most people who fly to Las Vegas plan ahead
for a vacation or to attend a convention and buy their airplane
ticket well in advance to secure the lowest fare possible.
Other passengers come to Las Vegas as part of a comprehensive
tour package where a tour broker has blocked space with an
airline and at a hotel for a deep discount. Finally, many
travelers redeem frequent flier miles to fly themselves or
their families to Las Vegas at virtually no cost to them and
thus no revenue for the airlines. With the majority of
passengers traveling to Las Vegas being either advance purchase
fares, tour packages or frequent flier redemptions, it is easy
to see why Las Vegas is a low yield destination for the
airlines.
It is easy to understand why the airlines which service Las
Vegas, are very sensitive to the incremental system costs which
results from departure and arrival delays. Increasing delays
mean higher operational costs attributable to wasted fuel
burned on the taxiways, added crew time and additional delays
at connecting airports. As the operator of McCarran Airport, we
have to be sensitive that delay costs could make it difficult
for airlines to add airline service or to maintain existing
service levels.
For us to maintain the viability of long term airline
service to Las Vegas, we need to find an alternative primary
commercial service airport to McCarran. We have studied options
for several years and we have concluded there is only one
viable alternative airport site. Most of the airspace to the
north of McCarran is under the control of the Department of
Defense due to the ever increasing military operations at
Nellis Air Force Base. This has limited our search to areas
south of Las Vegas. The only viable site that has adequate
airspace is about 22 miles south of McCarran in the Ivanpah
Valley.
Ivanpah Valley is the only site that will allow for a full
precision instrument approach that will not result in a severe
airspace conflict with the air traffic at McCarran. This site,
with the potential for a north-south complex of parallel
runways is unusual because it is both flat and devoid of mound
terrain off the ends of the future runways. It is also located
in close proximity to Interstate 15 and the Union Pacific
Railroad which will enhance intermodal transportation and cargo
opportunities.
It is our plan to develop this airport as needed by our
growth at McCarran. It is likely that the first developments to
move to this new airport would be air cargo and charter
operations with scheduled air service eventually following as
traffic continues to increase at McCarran.
Notwithstanding the opportunity for us to obtain Federal
land under Section 505 of the Airport and Airways Improvement
Act for free, there is a significant bureaucratic process
involved that could take years to complete. Mr. Chairman, we
are very anxious to secure this site and we are willing to pay
fair market value for the land, which is just a little bit more
than 6,000 acres. This new airport is absolutely critical for
the Clark County Department of Aviation to fulfill its mission
of never allowing the lack of airport infrastructure to be an
impediment to people coming to visit Las Vegas, the Grand
Canyon or other destinations in Color Country.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this
most important issue regarding the future of our air
transportation system in Clark County. I am available to answer
any questions you may have.
------
Statement of The Wilderness Society
Chairman Hansen:
Please include this letter in the June 23 hearing record
for H.R. 3705, The Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer
Act.
The Wilderness Society opposes H.R. 3705. We believe this
bill undercuts existing laws and policies regarding the
management, protection, and disposal of public lands. In
addition, the bill will damage important public recreational
resources, wildlife habitat, and units of the national park and
wilderness preservation systems.
As written, H.R. 3705: (1) ignores the existing Federal
land management plan for public lands in Clark County, (2)
circumvents the planning process called for in the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), (3) prevents adequate public
review of the land sale and its environmental impacts, and (4)
fails to provide a fair return to U.S. taxpayers by not
resuming fair market value for the sale of these lands.
The proposed legislation would be in direct conflict with
the existing Bureau of Land Management's Stateline Resource
Management Plan. That plan, developed with the full
participation of the public and an appropriate environmental
review process, determined that the lands identified by H.R.
3705 should remain in Federal ownership. A number of important
public benefits and uses of the land, including recreational
and wildlife habitat, were the basis for this determination.
Specifically, Section 2 (a) of H.R. 3705 would thwart the
requirements of Section 202 of FLPMA and require the sale of
these lands in direct contradiction to the existing management
plan for the area, without a public participation process to
review the proposal and without the environmental review that
would necessarily be included in that process.
Section 2 (b) of H.R. 3705 would limit the ability of the
Federal Treasury to obtain fair market value for the sale of
these lands by restricting the determination of fair market
value to the six month period after enactment of the law,
rather than at the time of the sale of the lands. This
restriction is particularly significant given the 20-year time
frame envisioned for the sale of these public lands.
Given the absence of a map, the exact extent and resource
impact of the proposed land sale is unclear, but at a minimum,
several square miles of public land which supports recreation
and wildlife would be turned over for industrial development.
Development of the proposed airport would not only directly
impact the lands on which it is sited, but it would also lead
to significant impacts to the Mojave National Preserve and its
wilderness areas.
The Preserve lies directly under the flight paths for
aircraft that would use the proposed airport. The western most
runway of the airport would be less than ten miles from the
boundary of the Mojave National Preserve and flights landing
and departing would be at their lowest and loudest levels as
they approached the park. These overflights would destroy the
area's natural quiet and disturb both visitors and the park's
wildlife populations.
The development of an international airport in this area
would also attract significant interest in development of the
surrounding lands for commercial purposes. Clearly, this would
lead to increasing pressure to sell off more public lands to
provide for the continuing, uncontrolled sprawl that is Las
Vegas.
The public lands and resources affected by H.R. 3705
warrant the careful attention of both the BLM and Congress.
These lands should not be disposed of without a considered
public planning process that determines that such disposition
is in the public's best interest. We believe that H.R. 3705 is
an ill-advised bill, particularly in light of the time
limitations which the 105th Congress faces in its waning weeks.
The Wilderness Society urges Congress to forestall any further
action on this legislation, and instead to allow the
administrative planning process--with its emphasis on public
involvement--an opportunity to address the important issues
raised by this bill.
Thank you.
------
Statement of Charlotte Innes, Los Angeles, California
Dear Congressman Hansen,
I am writing to ask that my comments below be made a part
of the public hearing record on H.R. 3705, the bill pertaining
to the proposed airport in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada.
I strenuously object to the building of this airport on a
site that is less than 20 miles away from one of the most
beautiful wilderness spots on earth, the Mojave National
Preserve. Such a facility would fill the sky over this quiet
spot with the thunder of large, low-flying jets. It would also
attract commercial and industrial development south of Las
Vegas (which is just 30 miles north of the site) right into the
heart of the desert, thus despoiling one of the last great
desert sanctuaries of the U.S.
I understand that the proposal calls for the transfer of
land for the proposed site from the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management to the Clark County Department of Aviation. I
strongly urge you to recommend against this transfer!
------
Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, a Senator in Congress from the State of
Nevada
Mr. Chairman, I submit testimony to you today in strong
support of H.R. 3705, which authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to convey for fair market value, certain lands in the
Ivanpah valley to the Clark County Department of Aviation to
allow us a site for the future construction of an airport to
serve southern Nevada. As you know I am the principle sponsor
along with my colleague Senator Bryan of companion legislation
in the Senate.
Half the people who come to southern Nevada now come by
air. Air traffic into Las Vegas has statistically followed the
construction of hotel rooms. Before the year 2000, Las Vegas
will add approximately 12,000 more rooms to the inventory. We
estimate that every thousand new hotel rooms will generate
275,000 visitors or an annual total of 6 million new tourists,
half of whom will pass through McCarran.
Weekend before last I attended the opening of the new ``D''
gates terminal. With the completion of this beautiful facility,
we will have constructed over $1.5 billion of new
infrastructure to not only accommodate, but to stay
significantly ahead of the anticipated growth at McCarran. The
new ``D'' gates will provide sufficient facilities to carry us
ten years into the future. The ``D'' gates terminal is located
however on the last spot of aircraft accessible land at
McCarran. After the future phases of the ``D'' gates are
complete, we will not be able to add additional terminal
facilities at the airport.
We now have four air carrier capable runways at McCarran,
and due to space constraints, that is all we will ever have
room for. Fortunately, with our existing four runways, there is
sufficient airfield capacity to allow for additional short and
mid term growth. However, once that growth gets above 600,000
annual aircraft operations, (we are currently at 474,000) our
runway/taxiway system will produce cumulative delays that
exceed an average of forty minutes per aircraft operation.
Simply put, we are running out of room and we need now to set
aside an area that is acceptable as a new airport site for
southern Nevada. The Ivanpah Valley is the only site left that
will accommodate all the needs of such an airport.
We anticipate a hearing in the Senate on our bill in July
with the hope and expectation that we can pass this bill before
the Congress concludes. We should be able to do this because
the bill is bipartisan and noncontroversial. I am disappointed
that the BLM witness at today's hearing has taken a position
opposed to this legislation. I understand however that many of
the concerns expressed in the BLM testimony are based upon out
of date or incomplete information about what is being proposed.
I will be working with BLM to address these issues but in the
meantime I urge you to move this legislation to markup as soon
as possible and we will try to keep pace in the Senate, thank
you.