[Senate Hearing 109-104]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-104
LAND EXCHANGE BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 100 S. 404
S. 235 H.R. 816
S. 741 S. 761
H.R. 486
__________
MAY 11, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2005
23-045 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
Scott Miller, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado................... 12
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 1
Holtrip, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Greg Smith,
Director of Lands, U.S. Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 2
Krupp, Christopher, Staff Attorney, Western Land Exchange
Project, Seattle, WA........................................... 20
Lonnie, Thomas P., Assistant Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 7
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 11
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 21
LAND EXCHANGE BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
will be in order. My apologies for running a little late. I
think we all got slightly dislocated for a few moments during
the noon hour, but we're back on track.
Good afternoon to all of you. I want to welcome all of you
to this legislative hearing: Joel Holtrip, Deputy Chief for the
National Forest Service System, Tom Lonnie, BLM Assistant
Director, Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection. It's nice
to see both of you.
Joel, I want to congratulate you on your recent promotion.
I'm sure that we'll be spending more quality time together now
that you lead that portion of the Forest Service that this
committee has responsibility for.
Today, we are considering the following legislative
proposals: S. 100, to authorize the exchange of certain land in
the State of Colorado; S. 235 and H.R. 816, to direct the
Secretary of Agriculture to sell certain parcels of Federal
land in Carson City and Douglas County, Nevada; S. 404, to make
a technical correction relating to land conveyance authority by
Public Law 108-67; S. 741, to provide for the disposal of
certain Forest Service administrative sites in the State of
Oregon, and for other purposes; S. 761 to rename the Snake
River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in the State of
Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National
Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an
international authority on birds of prey who was instrumental
in the establishment of the National Conservation Area, and for
other purposes; and H.R. 486, to provide a land exchange
involving private land and BLM land in the vicinity of Holloman
Air Force Base, New Mexico, for the purpose of removing private
land from the required safety zone surrounding munitions
storage bunkers at Holloman Air Force Base.
I do want to mention S. 761, my bill to rename the Snake
River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area to the Morley
Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.
Morley worked most of his life to ensure the protection of
world-class management of this area. I believe that the area
would not have been designated a national conservation area
without his dedicated efforts, and I believe this Congress
should recognize his hard work and dedication. Few were ever as
committed to birds of prey, raptors, as was the late Morley
Nelson.
I know that Senators Smith and Wyden may want to speak on
their bill, S. 741, to convey a number of administrative sites
on several forests in Oregon, and then Senator Salazar may want
to speak on S. 100, the Pitkin County, Colorado land exchange,
so I'll finish up here.
I have two thoughts about today's bills. First, this is the
second time recently that a Member has brought forward a land
exchange bill that should have been accomplished through the
administrative process. But it has taken a decade of work and
frustration before someone finally asked Congress to step in. I
am increasingly troubled by the Federal agency's inability to
make the administrative land exchange process work in a timely
manner.
Last, I continue to be concerned about land conveyances
that develop new ways to share the excess revenues or receipts
from the conveyances or exchanges with the States and local
governments. I'm worried that we are developing a new set of
laws on Federal Government revenue sharing that will treat each
State differently. And I hope we will think about this trend
before we change the process to the point that it becomes
something different for every state.
None of my colleagues are here at this moment. So with that
recognition, let me turn to our witnesses, who are here with us
today, and Joel, we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTRIP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
ACCOMPANIED BY GREG SMITH, DIRECTOR OF LANDS, U.S. FOREST
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrip. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in
order to provide the Department's views on S. 100, Pitkin
County Land Exchange Act, S. 235, and H.R. 816, Nevada National
Forest Land Disposal Act; S. 404, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California Land Conveyance; and S. 741, Oregon National Forest
Administrative Site Disposal Act. I am accompanied today by
Greg Smith, U.S. Forest Service Director of Lands.
S. 100 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
exchange 13 parcels of National Forest System lands totaling
11.42 acres and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange one
40-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management Land for two
parcels of non-Federal land, 35 acres, and 18.2 acres.
The Departments would have no objection to the enactment of
S. 100 if the reversionary clause in section 5(d)(1)(B) is
modified. Interior would like the opportunity to work with the
committee and the sponsors of the bill to ensure that the
reversionary clause is discretionary for the Secretary of the
Interior to avoid potential liability to the Federal
Government.
Also, the Departments would like the opportunity to
finalize the map cited in the legislation to ensure the
accuracy of the Federal parcels to be transferred.
S. 235 and H.R. 816 would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to sell seven isolated parcels of National Forest
System land in Carson City or Douglas County, Nevada, ranging
from 2\1/2\ to 80 acres in size. Proceeds from the sales would
be disbursed to various State and local entities and the
Federal Government.
The Department agrees these tracts of National Forest
System land are difficult and inefficient to manage and
appropriate for conveyance. The Department would not oppose the
bill if the proceeds generated from the sale of these lands
were used to fund critical facility maintenance and
construction needs on National Forest System lands. We would
like to work with the committee and the bill sponsors regarding
the distribution and use of the proceeds generated from the
sales of these Federal parcels.
Public Law 108-67 directed the conveyance of approximately
24 acres of National Forest System to the Department of the
Interior to be held in trust for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California. The proposal in S. 404 would shift the conveyance
described in Public Law 108-67 approximately 615 feet south
along the Skunk Harbor shoreline adjacent to Lake Tahoe.
The Department recognizes the tribe's interest in adjusting
the conveyance in Public Law 108-67, but believes S. 404 will
create additional management challenges. We would recommend
working with the committee, the tribe, and the bill sponsors to
ensure that the tribe's conveyance objectives are met while
mitigating the public access issues derived from the shift in
the conveyance.
S. 741 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell
or exchange under such terms as the Secretary may prescribe any
or all right title and interest of the United States in and to
the following 25 National Forest System lands and improvements
located in the Rogue River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and
Willamette National Forests in the State of Oregon.
S. 741 would also correct an unanticipated problem
generated when the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness was initially
designated.
The Department appreciates the interest and support of the
committee and bill sponsors in helping us deal with our needs
for facilities realignment. As the bill illustrates, the
Department has a number of facilities and appurtenant land no
longer needed by the agency.
The fiscal year 2006 budget contains a proposal for
legislation that would authorize the Secretary to sell such
units excess to the agency's need and to utilize the proceeds
from those sales for the acquisition, improvement, maintenance,
and disposition of administrative sites and capital
improvements on National Forest System lands. This authority
would eliminate the need to pass legislation for every State or
forest that has these needs.
The administration will soon forward legislative language
to Congress to accomplish these worthy goals. In this context,
the Department could not support S. 741 without the following
modification. Under section 2(c), the Secretary is authorized
to convey without consideration to the State of Oregon or a
local government for public purposes any or all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to any of the land
described in subsection (a).
The Department would recommend the lands and accompanying
buildings be offered to the State of Oregon or a local
government at market value, and that proceeds of the conveyance
be used for the acquisition or construction of new facilities
or the reconstruction of existing facilities. This approach
would then be consistent with the administration's legislative
proposal.
In addition, section 329 of the Department of the Interior
and Related Appropriations Act of 2002, as amended, established
a pilot program authorizing the conveyance of excess Forest
Service structures. The tracts identified in section 2(a)(17)-
(23) have been sold under this authority, and we would
recommend removing them from the bill.
We are supportive of making the technical correction of the
Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness as identified in S. 741.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrip follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrip, Deputy Chief for National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, on S. 100, S. 404,
S. 741, and S. 235 and H.R. 816
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today in order to provide the
Department's views on S. 100--Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005,
S. 235 and H.R. 816--Nevada National Forest Land Disposal Act of 2005,
S. 404--Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California Land Conveyance and S.
741--Oregon National Forest Administrative Site Disposal Act. I am
accompanied today by Greg Smith, U.S. Forest Service Director of Lands.
s. 100--pitkin county land exchange act of 2005
S. 100 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange
thirteen parcels of National Forest System lands (totaling 11.42 acres)
and the Secretary of the Interior to exchange one 40 acre parcel of
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for two parcels of non-federal
land (35 acres and 18.2 acres) if Pitkin County, Colorado offers to
convey title to the non-federal land that is acceptable to the
Secretary of Agriculture. The lands acquired by the Secretaries would
then become part of the White River National Forest in Colorado. The
federal lands would be conveyed to Pitkin County, Colorado.
The Departments would have no objection to the enactment of S. 100
if the reversionary clause in section 5(d)(1)(B) is modified. DOI would
like the opportunity to work with the Committee and the sponsors of the
bill on amendments to ensure that the reversionary clause is
discretionary for the Secretary of the Interior to avoid potential
liability to the Federal government. Also, the Departments would like
the opportunity to finalize the map cited in the legislation to ensure
the accuracy of the federal parcels to be transferred.
The acquisition of the non-federal parcels would consolidate
National Forest land ownership in and around the historic Ashcroft
Townsite and on Smuggler Mountain. The non-federal parcels and
surrounding lands are a popular sightseeing and recreation destination
used for Nordic skiing and contain historic structures associated with
the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division during World War II.
Section 5(a)-(c) of the bill would require that the value of the
federal and non-federal lands directed to be exchanged under S. 100 be
equal, with values being determined by appraisal conducted in
accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices
and the Forest Service appraisal instructions. The bill includes
provisions on equalizing values, if necessary.
Section 5(d)(1)(A) of the bill requires Pitkin County to grant to
an entity acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior a permanent
conservation easement. The conservation easement would provide for
public access on the BLM parcel conveyed to the County and would limit
future use to recreational, fish and wildlife and open space purposes
only. However, under section 5(b)(2) of the bill, the appraiser would
be directed not to consider the easement in appraising this parcel.
s. 235 and h.r. 816--nevada national forest land disposal act of 2005
For ease of discussion references to S. 235 also apply to H.R. 816,
unless otherwise noted. S. 235 would direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to sell seven specific parcels of National Forest System
land in Carson City or Douglas County, Nevada ranging from 2.5 to 80
acres in size. Proceeds from the sales would be dispersed to various
state and local entities, and the federal government.
Section 3(d)(1) of the bill provides that the Secretary shall ``(A)
pay five percent to the State of Nevada for use for the general
education program of the state; (B) pay five percent to the Carson
Water Subconservancy District in the State; (C) deposit 25 percent in
the fund established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the
Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a); and (D) retain and use, without further
appropriation, the remaining funds for the purpose of expanding the
Minden Interagency Dispatch Center in Minden, Nevada, as provided in
paragraph (3).''
Section 3(d)(2) of the bill provides that the amounts deposited in
the Sisk Act Fund ``shall be available to the Secretary until expended,
without further appropriation, for the following purposes: (A)
Reimbursement of costs incurred by the local offices of the Forest
Service in carrying out land sales under this section, not to exceed 10
percent of the total proceeds of the land sales. (B) The development
and maintenance of parks, trails, and natural areas in Carson City or
Douglas County, (H.R. 816 also lists Washoe County, Nevada), in
accordance with a cooperative agreement entered into with the unit of
local government in which the park, trail or natural area is located.''
The Department agrees these tracts of National Forest System land
are difficult and inefficient to manage, and appropriate for
conveyance. However, the Administration is concerned that the proposed
use of proceeds from the sale of real property--a conversion of a
capitol asset owned by the Federal taxpayer--would support ongoing
operational expenses, including those of non-federal entities. The
Department would not oppose the bill if the proceeds generated from the
sale of these lands were used to fund critical facility maintenance and
construction needs on National Forest System lands. Considering the
nature of the lands proposed for sale, we think the use of these sale
proceeds for funding facility projects is appropriate and would further
the Forest Service's facilities realignment objectives. The President's
FY 2006 Budget includes a more fiscally prudent proposal which would
provide the Secretary with the authority to sell administrative sites,
to provide more efficient real estate management of lands and
facilities throughout the entire National Forest System.
We would like to work with the committee and the bill's sponsors on
amendments regarding the distribution and use of the proceeds generated
from the sales of these Federal parcels.
s. 404--washoe tribe of nevada and california land conveyance
P.L. 108-67 directed the conveyance of approximately 24 acres of
NFS land to the Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the
Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. The proposal in S. 404 would
shift the conveyance described in P.L. 108-67 approximately 615 feet
south along the Skunk Harbor shoreline adjacent to Lake Tahoe. The
current conveyance includes only rocky shoreline. S. 404 would include
approximately 300 feet of sandy beach. The conveyance of 80% of the
public's accessible sandy beach area in Skunk Harbor will limit public
access to the remaining 90 feet of sandy beach located near the
historic Newhall House. This will limit the approximately 6,000 people
who use Skunk Harbor annually to only 90 feet of public beach. The
increased usage of the beach will subsequently increase the management
needs for the beach area and the adjacent Newhall House.
The Department recognizes the Tribe's interest in adjusting the
conveyance in P.L. 108-67 but believes S. 404 will create additional
management challenges. We would recommend working with the Committee,
the Tribe and the bill sponsors on amendments to ensure that the
Tribe's conveyance objectives are met while mitigating the public
access issues.
The boundary description in S. 404 legislation is not easily
identified on the ground. In order to avoid long term survey and land
ownership issues, we recommend that the Bureau of Land Management
through the Bureau of Indian Affairs or a private Licensed Surveyor
provide a legal description and Record of Survey once the boundary has
been determined. The Department recommends making changes to the
boundary tied to identifiably distinct features on the ground (e.g.
roads). These boundary changes would insure a more effective management
of the National Forest System lands adjacent to the lands being
conveyed to the Tribe.
It is important to note that Forest Service personnel, using
geographic information system techniques, estimated the adjusted
boundary described in S. 404 which resulted in approximately 21.6 acres
being conveyed rather than the 24.3 acres as mentioned in S. 404 and
conveyed under P.L. 108-67. This is displayed on the map generated for
the hearing today.
s. 741--oregon national forest administrative site disposal act
S. 741 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or
exchange, under such terms as the Secretary may prescribe, any or all
right, title and interest of the United States in and to the following
25 National Forest System lands and improvements located in the Rogue
River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and Willamette National Forests in
the State of Oregon. S. 741 would also correct an unanticipated problem
generated when the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness was initially
designated.
The specific tracts listed in S. 741 are as follows:
The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest
(1) The Star Gulch Complex consisting of 2.25 acres and six
buildings;
(2) The Butte Falls Housing Complex consisting of 2.5 acres and
four buildings;
(3) The Old Agnes Guard Station consisting of 2.5 acres and six
buildings;
(4) The Chetco Ranger District Housing complex consisting of 1.5
acres and 5 buildings;
(5) The Gold Beach House consisting of 0.25 acres and one building;
(6) The Powers South Work Center consisting of 1.59 acres and eight
buildings;
The Siuslaw National Forest
(7) The Gardiner Administrative Site consisting of 3.5 acres and
four buildings;
(8) The Waldport Administrative Site consisting of 6.65 acres and
four buildings;
The Umpqua National Forest
(9) The Roseburg Service Center Administrative Site consisting of
2.92 acres and five buildings;
(10) The Roseburg Powder House Administrative Site consisting of
1.34 acres;
(11) Brown Street Residence Administrative Site consisting of 2.35
acres and three buildings;
The Willamette National Forest
(12) The Blue River Administrative Site consisting of 31.91 acres
and ten buildings;
(13) The Hemlock House consisting of 6 acres and two buildings;
(14) The Flat Creek Administrative Site consisting of 45 acres and
accompanying buildings;
(15) The Rigdon Administrative Site consisting of 15 acres and
accompanying buildings;
(16) The Cascadia Administrative Site consisting of 15 acres and
two buildings;
(17) The Sweet Home House consisting of 0.07 acres and one
building;
(18) The Sweet Home House consisting of 1.4 acres and one building;
(19) The Sweet Home House consisting of 0.21 acres and one
building;
(20) The Mill City House consisting of 0.30 acres and one building;
(21) The Mill City House consisting of 0.30 acres and one building;
(22) The Mill City House consisting of 0.30 acres and one building;
(23) The Mill City House consisting of 0.33 acres and one building;
(24) The Willamette National Forest Administrative Site consisting
of 2.24 acres and five buildings; and
(25) The West Fir residences consisting of 20 acres.
The Department appreciates the interest and support of the
Committee and bill sponsors in helping us deal with our needs for
facilities realignment.
S. 741 authorizes the sale of the above mentioned tracts through
auction or bid and provides for the use of brokers to facilitate the
sales. In addition any appraisals deemed necessary by the Secretary
shall conform to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions. Proceeds derived from the sales will be deposited in the
fund established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly know as the Sisk
Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a). These funds would be made available to the
Secretary, without further appropriation, to be used for the
acquisition of lands and interest in lands in the specified National
Forests, the payment or reimbursement of costs incurred by the Forest
Service in processing the conveyance and for the acquisition or
construction of new facilities or the rehabilitation of existing Forest
Service facilities.
As the bill illustrates, the Department has a number of facilities
and appurtenant land no longer needed by the agency. The FY 2006 Budget
contains a proposal for legislation that would authorize the Secretary
to sell such units excess to the agency's need and to utilize the
proceeds from those sales for the acquisition, improvement,
maintenance, and disposition of administrative sites and capitol
improvements on National Forest System lands. Funds deposited under
this authority would address backlogs and administrative consolidations
while improving efficiencies through the reconstruction of functionally
obsolete facilities or construction of new facilities. This authority
would eliminate the need to pass legislation for every State or Forest
that has these needs. The Administration will forward legislative
language to Congress within the next several weeks to accomplish these
worthy goals. In this context, the Department could not support S. 741
without the following modification:
Under Section 2(c) the Secretary is authorized to convey, without
consideration, to the State of Oregon or a local government for public
purposes any or all right, title and interest of the United States in
and to any of the land described in subsection (a). The Department
would recommend the lands and accompanying buildings be offered to the
State of Oregon or a local government at market value and that proceeds
of the conveyance be used for the acquisition or construction of new
facilities or the reconstruction of existing facilities. This approach
would then be consistent with the Administration's legislative
proposal.
In addition, Section 329 of the Department of the Interior and
Related Appropriations Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-63), as amended,
established a pilot program authorizing the conveyance of excess Forest
Service structures. The tracts identified in section 2(a)(17) through
(23) have been sold under this authority. We would recommend removing
them from the bill.
S. 741 would make a technical correction of the Rogue Umpqua Divide
Wilderness by slightly modifying the boundary so that (1) a road is
outside the wilderness by removing approximately 1.3 acres from the
wilderness, and (2) by adding approximately 1.3 acres of land with
wilderness character to the wilderness to offset the removal.
The original legal description, prepared in accordance with the map
of record at the time of designation, inadvertently resulted in a short
segment of Forest Service Road No. 2947-300 being within the Rogue
Umpqua Divide Wilderness by approximately 20 feet. This has resulted in
the closure of the road which is necessary to access National Forest
System land beyond the area where the road is within the wilderness
area. The small portion of land cut off by the road, which is
designated as wilderness, clearly has no wilderness character.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Craig. Joel, thank you very much.
Now, Tom, we'll turn to you for any additional comments you
will make on the relevant legislation.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. LONNIE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS,
REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Lonnie. Thank you for the opportunity to present the
views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 486 legislation
providing for the exchange of public and private land in the
vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.
In previous testimony on similar legislation, H.R. 4808,
given in the 108th Congress, we raised significant concerns,
several of which have been addressed in H.R. 486. One concern
previously identified in our testimony on H.R. 4808 remains
outstanding, and we have identified new concerns described more
fully in this testimony. The Department has concerns with H.R.
486 and could support the bill if our concerns are addressed.
As an initial matter, the Department views this as a unique
situation using Bureau of Land Management lands and the
provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 to resolve this issue involving the military's need for
private lands in Otero County, New Mexico. Given this, we do
not expect this matter to serve as precedent for future BLM
land exchanges.
Approximately 241 acres of Mesa Verde Ranch, owned by
Randall, Jeffrey, and Timothy Rabon are situated within the
explosive safety zone surrounding a munitions storage area at
Holloman Air Force Base. The safety zone for the munitions
storage area was previously included in easements immediately
adjacent to the eastern boundary of the base. But several of
the safety zone easements have terminated.
To secure the safety zone around the munitions storage
area, Holloman Air Force Base considered acquiring the Rabons'
241 acres through acquisition, land trade, conservation
easement, or condemnation. Acting on behalf of Holloman Air
Force Base, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offered to buy the
241 acres from the Rabons. However, the parties failed to reach
agreement on a purchase price.
On December 29, 2003, the Rabons submitted a land exchange
proposal to the BLM under which they would convey the 241 acres
to Holloman Air Force Base in exchange for BLM conveying to
them certain inholdings, parcels of BLM-managed public land
located within the Rabons' ranch. On July 9, 2004, H.R. 4808
was introduced, which directed the exchange of the Rabons' 241
acres for parcels of BLM-managed public land located within the
Mesa Verde Ranch, the same parcels identified by the Rabons'
proposal to the BLM in December 29, 2003.
At a September 14, 2004 hearing of the House Resources
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands,
the BLM testified that it had significant concerns with H.R.
4808. The legislation was not enacted. In the meantime, the
military still had been unable to reach agreement with the
Rabons on a price at which Holloman Air Force Base could
purchase the land.
Under H.R. 486, the Rabons would convey to the United
States three parcels of private land totaling approximately 241
acres contiguous to Holloman Air Force Base and located within
the required safety zone for the munitions storage bunkers.
H.R. 486 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the
Rabons approximately 320 acres of public domain land currently
managed by the BLM in the State of New Mexico. As distinguished
from the BLM parcels identified in H.R. 4808 in the last
Congress, the 320-acre parcel of public land, which the
Secretary is directed to convey to the Rabons under H.R. 486,
is not located within the boundaries of the Mesa Verde Ranch.
Rather, it is located near the southern portion of the city of
Alamogordo, New Mexico, and has been identified for retention
under BLM's land use planning process.
H.R. 486 directs the Secretary to carry out the exchange in
a manner provided in section 206 of FLPMA, but waives the
provision in section 206(b), which limits the amount of cash
that may be paid to equalize exchange values of the Federal
land conveyed.
One provision of H.R. 486 remains unchanged from H.R. 4808.
We testified as to our concern with this provision on December
14, 2004, specifically as in H.R. 4808, H.R. 486 requires the
Secretary of the Interior to assume administrative jurisdiction
over the 241-acre parcels. As stated in our testimony, this
acquired land should not be placed under the administrative
jurisdiction of this Secretary. The Federal Government's sole
purpose in acquiring this is for the protection of military
interest at Holloman. The acquired land should therefore be
withdrawn to the Secretary of the Army under public land order
833.
H.R. 486 directs the Secretary to carry out the exchange in
a manner provided in 206 of FLPMA. Under 206, lands proposed
for exchange for the U.S. Government must be of equal value
with lands conveyed. If the lands proposed for exchange are not
equal values, subsection (b) of section 206 provides for a cash
payment by either the Government or the private property owner
as appropriate in order to equalize values provided the payment
does not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the lands
transferred out of Federal ownership.
H.R. 486 waives the 25 percent limitation in section 206(b)
of FLPMA. The effect of this provision in H.R. 486 is that the
dollar amount of any cash payment to equalize the values in
this exchange would not be limited. This is inconsistent with
section 206 of FLPMA.
In addition, generally an exchange proponent is responsible
for paying appraisal costs. If the legislation requires the
Government to pay this cost, funds should be provided for this
purpose. We would like to work with the committee to address
these concerns.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be
glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lonnie follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas P. Lonnie, Assistant Director, Minerals,
Realty and Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, Department
of the Interior, on H.R. 486
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the U.S.
Department of the Interior on H.R. 486, legislation providing for an
exchange of public and private land in the vicinity of Holloman Air
Force Base\1\ in New Mexico. In previous testimony on similar
legislation (H.R. 4808) given in the 108th Congress, we raised
significant concerns, several of which have been addressed in H.R. 486.
One concern previously identified in our testimony on H. R. 4808
remains outstanding, and we have identified new concerns described more
fully in this testimony. The Department has significant concerns with
H.R. 486 and could support the bill if our concerns are addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Holloman AFB is in south-central New Mexico, near the town of
Alamogordo in Otero County. Operated by the United States Air Force,
the installation covers nearly 60,000 acres. It is located on lands
withdrawn from the public domain for military purposes under Public
Land Order 833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
background
As an initial matter, the Department views this as a unique
situation using Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands and the
provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of
1976 (P.L. 94-579) to resolve this issue involving the military's need
for private lands in Otero County, New Mexico. Given this, we do not
expect this matter to serve as precedent for future BLM land exchanges.
Approximately 241 acres of the Mesa Verde Ranch, owned by Randall,
Jeffrey, and Timothy Rabon, are situated within the explosive safety
zone surrounding a Munitions Storage Area at Holloman AFB. The safety
zone for the Munitions Storage Area was previously included in
easements immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the base, but
several of the safety zone easements have terminated. To secure the
safety zone around the Munitions Storage Area, Holloman AFB considered
acquiring the Rabons' 241 acres through acquisition, land trade,
conservation easement, or condemnation. Acting on behalf of Holloman
AFB, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offered to buy the 241 acres from
the Rabons. However, the parties failed to reach agreement on a
purchase price.
On December 29, 2003, the Rabons submitted a land exchange proposal
to the BLM under which they would convey the 241 acres to Holloman AFB
in exchange for BLM conveying to them certain inholdings--parcels of
BLM-managed public land located within the Rabons' ranch. On July 9,
2004, H.R. 4808 was introduced, which directed the exchange of the
Rabons' 241 acres for parcels of BLM-managed public land located within
the Mesa Verde Ranch (the same parcels identified in the Rabons'
proposal to the BLM of December 29, 2003). At a September 14, 2004,
hearing of the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks,
Recreation, and Public Lands, the BLM testified that it had significant
concerns with H.R. 4808. The legislation was not enacted. In the
meantime, the military still has been unable to reach agreement with
the Rabons on a price at which Holloman AFB could purchase the land.
h.r. 486
Under H.R. 486, the Rabons would convey to the United States three
parcels of private land, totaling approximately 241 acres, contiguous
to Holloman AFB and located within the required safety zone surrounding
munitions storage bunkers at the base. H.R. 486 directs the Secretary
of the Interior (Secretary) to convey to the Rabons approximately 320
acres of public domain land currently managed by the BLM in the state
of New Mexico. As distinguished from the BLM parcels identified in H.R.
4808 in the last Congress, the 320-acre parcel of public land which the
Secretary is directed to convey to the Rabons under H.R. 486 is not
located within the boundaries of the Mesa Verde Ranch; rather, it is
located near the southern portion of the city of Alamogordo, New
Mexico, and has been identified for retention under the BLM's land use
planning process.
H.R. 486 directs the Secretary to carry out the exchange in the
manner provided in section 206 [``Exchanges''] of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-579), but waives the
provision in section 206(b) which limits the amount of cash that may be
paid to equalize exchange values of the Federal land conveyed.
We commend the bill's sponsor for addressing in H.R. 486 several of
the concerns we previously raised in testimony on H.R. 4808.
Specifically:
In response to our concern that H.R. 4808 should specify
which acres of public land and privately-owned lands are
intended for the exchange, H.R. 486 provides a precise
description of the lands to be involved in the exchange.
We asked for the opportunity to develop a map to portray
accurately the exchange proposed in H.R. 4808, and to include
reference to the map in the legislation. Subsequent to the
September 14, 2004, hearing on H.R. 4808, the Rabons selected
different parcels of public land they wished to acquire. The
BLM developed a map, which is referenced in section 1(a) of
H.R. 486. We note that the bill should be amended to reflect
the name of the map as ``Alamogordo Rabon Exchange''.
We objected to the provision in H.R. 4808 that would have
deducted the Rabons' previous expenses (incurred in their
response to the military's efforts to purchase the 241 acres)
from any cash equalization payment due to the Federal
government as contrary to the public interest. This provision
does not appear in H.R. 486.
In response to our assertion that it was important that
lands involved in the proposed exchange be of equal value based
upon appraisals prepared in accordance with the Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition, H.R. 486
directs the Secretary to carry out the exchange in the manner
provided in section 206 of FLPMA. This will assure that the
appraisals will comply with Federal appraisal standards and the
U.S. Department of Justice Uniform Standards for Federal Land
Acquisition.
concerns with h.r. 486
One provision in H.R. 486 remains unchanged from H.R. 4808. We
testified as to our concern with this provision at the September 14,
2004, hearing on H.R. 4808. We continue to have concerns with this
provision.
Specifically, as in H.R. 4808, H.R. 486 requires the Secretary of
the Interior to assume administrative jurisdiction over the 241-acre
parcel to be conveyed by the Rabons. As stated in our testimony on H.R.
4808, this acquired land should not be placed under the administrative
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. The Federal government's
sole purpose in acquiring this 241-acre parcel is for the protection of
military interests at Holloman AFB. The acquired land should therefore
be withdrawn to the Secretary of the Army for that purpose and included
within existing Public Land Order 833.
H.R. 486 directs the Secretary to carry out the land exchange in
the manner provided in section 206 of FLPMA. Under section 206, lands
proposed for exchange with the United States government must be of
equal value with the lands to be conveyed out of Federal ownership. If
lands proposed for an exchange are not of equal value, subsection (b)
of section 206 provides for a cash payment to be made by either the
government or the private-property owner, as appropriate, in order to
equalize the values of the lands involved in the exchange, provided the
payment amount does not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the
lands transferred out of Federal ownership.
H.R. 486 [section 1(d)(1)] waives the 25 percent limitation in
section 206(b) of FLPMA. The effect of this provision in H.R. 486 is
that the dollar amount of any cash payment to equalize the values in
this exchange would not be limited. This is inconsistent with the
section 206 FLPMA process. In addition, generally an exchange proponent
is responsible for paying appraisal costs. If the legislation requires
the government to pay this cost, funds should be provided for this
purpose.
We would like to work with the Committee to address these concerns.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 486. I would
be glad to answer any questions.
Senator Craig. Tom, thank you very much for that testimony.
I'm going to turn to my colleague, Senator Salazar, for any
opening comments he might like to make, and then you may have
questions you would want to ask of these gentlemen.
A vote has just started. We can either do tandem here, I
can run and vote, you can ask questions, I can get back and you
can go, and we'll keep the committee going. How's that?
Senator Salazar. That would be just fine.
Senator Craig. All right. You're in charge.
Senator Salazar. Okay. You'll be back, though?
Senator Craig. I'll be back. If you get nervous, just
recess and I'll be right back.
Senator Salazar. You're going to vote while you're gone?
[Laughter.]
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar [presiding]. It's good being chairman once
in a while. Let me first of all just say welcome to all of you,
and I appreciate the testimony on these very important pieces
of legislation. For me, I have a particular interest in S. 100
because it involves Aspen and Pitkin County, and it's been a
project that has been near and dear to the hearts of a lot of
people who have worked on this project now for over 10 years.
And so I think the effort that has finally come together is one
which has a tremendous amount of support including the support
of Senator Allard and myself. And on behalf of Senator Allard
and myself, I would like to enter our opening statements into
the record, and since I'm the chairman I'll say without
objection and they will be entered into the record.
[The prepared statements of Senators Salazar and Allard
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on S. 100,
which Senator Allard and I have introduced to resolve a longstanding
land exchange issue near Aspen, Colorado. I note that both Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell and Congressman Scott McInnis introduced similar
bills in the House and Senate last fall, but there was not enough time
to process them. So, I am very pleased we are getting an early start
this year.
Mr. Chairman, S. 100 has its roots in efforts which the Forest
Service, the Ryan family and various non-profit groups initiated in the
early 1980s to acquire the Ryan family's private lands in and near the
well-known and historic Ashcroft townsite, some ten miles south of
Aspen. The Ashcroft area is extremely rich in recreational, historic
and scenic values . . . for example, it was the first place the famous
10th Mountain Division trained before Camp Hale was built . . . and
both the Ryan family and the Forest Service agreed that it should be
consolidated into public ownership. Accordingly, through a series of
land exchanges, and a donation by the Ryan family, all but a 35 acre
tract, currently known as the ``Ryan Property'', is now in Forest
Service hands.
Since the early 1990s, when the family indicated they could not
donate the 35 acre piece to the United States, the Forest Service,
Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) and numerous others have
attempted to secure either purchase money, or a land exchange, to
accomplish the task. But it was to no avail. So, in February of 2000 .
. . more than 5 years ago . . . when it appeared the Ryan Property was
in danger of imminent sale, and possible development, the Supervisor of
the White River National Forest asked Pitkin County and the Land Trust
to temporarily purchase the property, and to hold it until a land
exchange was completed. The County and AVLT agreed, and bought the
property for $3.2 million the very same month.
Since the County and AVLT purchased the parcel in 2000, the
promised land exchange has languished--largely because the parcels the
Forest Service identified for exchange to the County had title or other
problems which thwarted their disposal. There is also a BLM parcel
included in the exchange, and that type of three-way transaction
requires our approval.
Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, S. 100 directs an exchange of lands
between the County, Forest Service and BLM. Because the Forest Service
has had difficulty clearing title to its own land, S. 100 takes the
somewhat unusual step of placing the title cleanup responsibility in
the County's hands. The County has generously agreed to do that. Our
bill also insures that the United States will absolutely receive full
value for all lands it conveys and, most likely, that some of the value
of the Ryan parcel will end up being donated to the Forest Service.
Lastly, it requires that the County place a permanent conservation
easement on the BLM land it acquires, but specifies that the land be
appraised without that encumbrance. So, I do not see how we could craft
a better deal for the taxpayers.
Finally, I note that S. 100 has overwhelming public support. Not
only is it endorsed by Pitkin County, but also by the City of Aspen,
Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Aspen
Historical Society, the Conservation Fund, Crystal Valley Environmental
Protection Association, Crystal-Maroon Caucus, the Friends of Ashcroft,
Roaring Fork Conservancy, Sierra Club, Wilderness Workshop and the
Wilderness Society. Indeed, in my many years of land conservation work
in Colorado, it is hard to remember a project that has more consensus.
I have several letters of support from the groups I just mentioned that
I would like to enter into the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The letters have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding a hearing on this
important bill. I trust that we will be able to move it quickly through
the process so that the Ryan Property can finally be placed in public
hands, and so that Pitkin County and the Aspen Valley Land Trust can
recover the capital they currently have tied up in the Ryan Property
for use on other important open space acquisitions.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to share
my comments here today and for your leadership. You have been a strong
supporter of public lands and I commend you for your efforts as we
strive to find a balance between public and private ownership of our
nations land. Not only do you and I share a border, but we share a
philosophy--that the best way to govern is through sound policy. Today,
this committee will review a bill which I view as very sound policy; S.
100, the Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005.
The Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005, which I sponsored
along with my colleague Senator Salazar, would facilitate a multiparty
land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service
and Pitkin County. This is a good common sense bill. The federal
government has land that Pitkin County wants and Pitkin County has land
that the government wants. This legislation would ease federal land
management strains by exchanging outlying federal parcels for land
adjacent to current federal land. The bill also benefits Pitkin County
by providing the county with land they desire. This bill enjoys much
local support and presents a win-win situation for all.
Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we are able to reach agreement on
this bill and pass it favorably out of committee so that we can
preserve one of the most spectacularly beautiful pieces of land in this
great nation. I thank you and the Committee for your time and
consideration.
Senator Salazar. Let me just say that when you think about
the number of organizations that came together to try to work
on S. 100, it is incredible because it's the kind of example
that we ought to be seeing all across the West. We had the
Aspen Valley Land Trust, who's worked on this now for about a
decade, the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, the Aspen
Historical Society, Aspen Skiing Company, the Ashcroft Ski
Touring Organization, the Conservation Fund, the city of Aspen,
Crystal River Caucus, Crystal Maroon Caucus, the Crystal River
Environmental Protection Association, Friends of Ashcroft,
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, the Roaring Fork
Conservancy, the Sierra Club from the Roaring Fork area,
Wilderness Workshop, and the Wilderness Society.
And so I believe that S. 100 has extensive support on the
part of everyone who knows the project. I am very supportive of
the project and look forward to your support on the
legislation.
I have one question for you, Mr. Holtrip, and that was in
the comments from the agency. You said you were supportive but
there was some concern that I think you had on the reversionary
provision that you wanted included in the legislation. I'd like
you to comment on that if you would.
Mr. Holtrip. Yes, that's correct. The request is that the
reversionary clause be clarified that it is discretionary for
the Department of the Interior in order to provide for any
concerns on down the road in terms of any liability for the
Federal Government.
Senator Salazar. Okay. And you--I expect you'll work with
your staffs to try to address the concerns that you've raised
with respect to that clause?
Mr. Holtrip. Yes. And we have been working with the
Department of the Interior on that, and Mr. Lonnie may have
some additional thoughts on that.
Mr. Lonnie. Yes, we'd be happy to work with the staff on
that, Senator.
Senator Salazar. Well, thank you very much. Let me ask you
since I have you captive here and since the other pieces of
legislation here are in States other than Colorado, are there
other exchanges, Mr. Holtrip, that you are aware of within
Colorado that are pending that you would like to take the
opportunity to brief me on?
Mr. Holtrip. I'm going to turn to Mr. Smith, who is our
Director of Lands, if he's aware of any.
Mr. Smith. Not at this time. I think that we have been
working closely with all the States in the land exchanges that
we have in Colorado, so I don't think at this time we have
anything pending.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask both of you this general
question, and that is in the whole area of land exchanges, we
have done a lot in terms of land exchanges, I think, over the
last several decades, especially in Colorado, and I would
assume that's the case in many States across the West and
perhaps across the country. This experience that we had here
with this tract in Pitkin County ended up taking us about 10
years to finally get done.
Are there any general observations or recommendations that
you might want to make to me as a member of this committee on
how we might be able to make land exchanges go forward in a
smoother and more quicker, perhaps more efficient manner? Or do
we have a system that currently is working in exactly the way
that it should be working?
Mr. Holtrip. Well, I think that there are--there are some
concerns as to the amount of time it takes for us to go through
some of our administrative land exchange processes. It was just
a few weeks ago, since I'm fairly new to the position I'm in, I
was talking to Greg about that very question, and I asked, how
long do our administrative land exchange processes normally
take? And I'm not sure that there's a good answer that refers
to a normal process.
I think there are many exchanges that run through smoothly
and happen in a fairly short period of time, probably measured
in a few years. And then some of them are more complicated with
more issues around different interests wanting to make sure
that they're accomplishing different things that sometimes take
a considerably longer period of time.
It may be that the ones that rise to the level of us at the
national level or rise to the level of being dealt with in the
committee are some of the more complicated ones. Again, I think
that there are some things that we can take a look at, and to
determine our administrative land exchanges taking longer than
they ought to, and what are some of the things that we can do
to fix that.
Senator Salazar. In my own sense of having worked on some
of these land exchanges in my prior role in Colorado is that if
you have a community consensus, they're much easier to get
done. And often what ends up happening is you have one
stakeholder or one group that isn't on board. And so that
requires the process sometimes to drag on for a longer period
of time than it should.
But if you would think about and maybe provide some
information to me, I would appreciate it, with respect to
whether or not in a typical--maybe it's not the typical
situation--but in a situation where you do have a community
consensus for a particular exchange, so it's a non-
controversial exchange, is there anything that we could do
either administratively through regulation of our public land
agencies, or else through a change in the law, to try to
expedite that process, I would very much appreciate that.
Mr. Holtrip. We'd be happy to look into that and provide
you some additional information such as that. And again, I
would--I do concur that when a community has come together, as
obviously Pitkin County and those folks around Aspen have on
this particular exchange, that certainly does make the process
easier and appreciate the amount of support for this exchange
from the community and the wide array of interest groups, as
you indicated in your statement.
Even in that case, there are situations in which Pitkin
County is looking for open space. And there were some aspects
of the National Forest System land that was being looked at,
that took some time as the county was trying to make sure that
they were able to meet their open space requirements in looking
at the National Forest System parcels. It was a couple of years
ago when the county determined that perhaps the Federal parcel
that would best meet their needs was the Bureau of Land
Management parcel, the 40-acre parcel. It was at that time that
it became clear that our administrative process would not be
sufficient, since there's two different agencies involved at
that point.
Senator Salazar. Okay. Let me just find out what the timing
is on the vote. I think Chairman Craig is going to come back
and ask just a few questions. And so just to make sure that I
don't miss the vote, if you will just hang with us for a few
minutes. We're going to have the committee go into recess, but
I assume that Chairman Craig will be right back and call the
meeting back to order, so let's just hang tight for a few
minutes and he'll be right back. Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Senator Craig [presiding]. Well, thank you, gentlemen, for
your patience. Let's move on here. I've got several questions.
Joel, this question is of you, and it relates to S. 100. I
mentioned in my opening comments some of our frustration about
the timeliness of the ability of the Forest Service to move on
certain exchanges. I'm beginning to feel that the Forest
Service administrative land exchange process is completely
dysfunctional. It appears after literally years and years of
effort on the part of some where there appears to be no
difficulty or at least limited difficulty, we find we're having
to legislate relatively minor or sometimes quite small
exchanges.
Would you have your staff prepare a spreadsheet on all land
exchanges over the last decade? Please rank them by the number
of acres being exchanged and provide a column that shows how
many years each exchange has been in the works. So starting
from let's say the time when the Forest Service or the private
party first suggested the exchange. And finally, please show
which exchanges were completed through the administrative
process and which exchanges had to be legislated.
I may be way out in left field, but it seems like we're
legislating more and more of these exchanges. We gave the
Forest Service the authority to process these in a timely
fashion. So if you could do that for us, I think it would be
worth our time, and then working with you all to see how we
might effectuate more streamlined processes if need be.
Dealing with S. 235 and H.R. 816, Federal lands in Carson
City and Douglas County, Nevada, I know the administration has
expressed concern about the amount of money generated by the
sale of some of the properties from the Southern Nevada/Clark
County bill we passed a couple of years ago. I suspect some of
these properties may also generate significant sums, those in
the current legislation.
As in the past, you have testified that the administration
has some concerns with the receipt-sharing formula in the bill.
I also note that the agency is suggesting in its budget request
for 2006 it be allowed to dispose of administrative sites and
keep the revenues to help pay for building maintenance and
construction.
Tell me why we shouldn't require the revenues from these
conveyances and others that you will be proposing be counted as
gross receipts to be shared with the counties or to help pay
for the county payments under the Craig-Wyden School Bill.
Mr. Holtrip. Well, first of all I want to be clear in
saying that we recognize the importance of education and the
school bill and recognize that there are--in tight fiscal times
we need to look at a full array of funding needs.
The administration's 2006 budget and beyond reflects a
reduction in the overall allocation for our facilities
maintenance program. The Department's 2006 Forest Service
facility realignment and enhancement legislative proposal would
provide for greater efficiencies in the management and
realignment of administrative sites on the National Forest
system, and receipts derived from the conveyance of those sites
and facilities would be deposited in the Sisk Act Fund and
remain available to the Secretary for administrative site
purposes.
If we do not receive the proceeds from the conveyance of
properties such as this, our ability to acquire, to improve, to
reduce the Forest Service's deferred maintenance backlog would
be seriously affected.
Senator Craig. S. 404, to make a technical correction
relating to the land conveyance authority under Public Law 108-
67. I see from the map you have provided for the committee that
the lands to be conveyed to the Washoe Tribe have shifted
southward, and now much more of Forest Service 15 north 67 will
fall within the conveyance.
In the original bill, as I recall, the Forest Service
retained a right-of-way for the road. Will you continue to
retain the right-of-way on the Forest Service road 15N67?
Mr. Holtrip. Yes, we would. The conveyance under section 2
of the Public Law 108-67 was made subject to a reservation to
the United States for non-exclusive easement for both public
and administrative access.
Senator Craig. Okay. Can you tell us why the Forest Service
or the Washoe Tribe needs to shift the conveyance to the south?
Mr. Holtrip. Well, I can only speak for the Forest Service
in saying that we support the goal of providing meaningful
access to the area for the Washoe Tribe. We're committed to
working with the tribe regarding their land acquisition goals
and recognize the shift of the conveyance to the south will
pose challenges to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in
managing public access.
One of the things that happens with this shift to the south
is a sandy beach area that is used by many members of the
public, all but 90 feet of that would be conveyed to the Washoe
Tribe, and that would create some public access issues.
It's my understanding that today the acting forest
supervisor of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and the
Washoe Tribe are out on the property walking the property
trying to understand each other's needs and concerns on those
types of access issues.
Senator Craig. You mean we may have to shift the
description a little more after today's walk-around?
Mr. Holtrip. Or there may be other alternatives that will
accomplish some of the access concerns.
Senator Craig. I see. Okay. The reason I was concerned
about right-of-way, I think it's called the Newhall House,
there's a property, the road access house has to be gained
through this conveyance. And you're comfortable that the right-
of-way you retain will allow that?
Mr. Holtrip. That's my understanding, yes.
Senator Craig. Okay. S. 741, to provide for the disposal of
certain Forest Service administrative sites in Oregon and other
purposes, if you were still selling timber in Oregon like you
did before the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan was finalized,
would you still have a need for the administrative sites that
you will be disposing of in S. 741?
Mr. Holtrip. Well, you know, our past infrastructure needs
were reflective of the access and the resource needs then. The
administrative site needs of the Forest Service in Oregon have
changed over the past decade. Each of the national forests
involved, the Rogue River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and
Willamette, have determined that their administrative site
needs are through--what those needs are through their facility
master planning effort. And these administrative site needs are
now reflective of their current program of work, both now and
what they're foreseeing into the future.
Senator Craig. The Clinton Northwest Forest Plan was
finalized, I believe, in 1994. Why has it taken the Forest
Service a decade to decide to dispose of these properties?
Mr. Holtrip. Well, it was in the mid-1990's that we
recognized the need to realign our facilities commensurate with
our program of work. In order to make the realignment changes,
we updated our facility master planning process, the process
that we go through for that facility master planning, in 1995.
It's taken us time to standardize and implement that
process across the entire National Forest Service system, and
that process was finalized in 2003. Over the past several
years, we have been using the pilot conveyance authority and
other authorities available to us in order to dispose of
facilities.
For example, as my testimony indicated, seven of the tracts
identified in S. 741 have already been sold under the pilot
conveyance authority.
Senator Craig. The reason, Joel, I mention this is I assume
that in that decade of time that it took you all to create a
mechanism and make a decision, these sites were sustained and
maintained.
Mr. Holtrip. To varying degrees, that's correct.
Senator Craig. Right. And that costs money.
Mr. Holtrip. Yes.
Senator Craig. And here today you are seeking to sell land
for the purpose of gaining money so that you can sustain sites
and sustain operations. I'm really getting quite serious about
the fact that it takes a decade for you all to make a decision.
And your inability to make decisions costs money. And in your
role, I would hope that you could look at mechanisms or come to
us if you've got impediments within the law.
Obviously, we want property fairly handled, fair values
brought, and all of that, but the time it takes and the money
it takes to process these properties are sometimes more
valuable than the properties themselves. And while that is
probably less the case today than ever before, it's still a
reality, and I'm suggesting that time has value, except in
government.
If this were a private company making that decision in
1994, they would have been sold by 1996, I would guess. I know
we're not private companies in private business, but we ought
to try to grasp a little of the essence of getting things done
in a timely fashion when the determination is made that they're
not needed anymore. I grow very frustrated by those kinds of
processes.
Mr. Holtrip. Could I just say that I agree? I know that our
chief also agrees with concerns over how long it sometimes
takes for us to go through some of these types of processes.
Referring back to your request on the administrative land
exchanges, as another one of those examples that you're talking
about, I believe that we'll be more than happy to provide the--
--
Senator Craig. Well, I think it will give us a good
perspective.
Mr. Holtrip [continuing]. Information that you're
providing. And it's our intention of looking at that, because
we are aware of the perception that our administrative land
exchanges sometimes take longer than we want them to. And we
believe that providing you that information will also provide
us the opportunity to look at what are some of the things that
we need to do.
Senator Craig. Super. Thank you very much. Tom, thank you
for your testimony. S. 761, to rename to Snake River Birds of
Prey Area to the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey
National Conservation Area in honor of Morley is of great value
to the State of Idaho--and we believe to the Nation--as it
relates to recognizing Mr. Nelson.
I assume that when this legislation is signed--well, first
of all, I know you chose not to comment about it. So I have to
assume that when this legislation is signed into law, the BLM
will schedule a renaming ceremony at the conservation area to
celebrate Morley's accomplishments. Can I count on that?
Mr. Lonnie. You can absolutely count on it, Mr. Senator.
We'd be delighted to do that.
Senator Craig. Great. Thank you very much. H.R. 486, to
provide a land exchange involving private land, the Bureau of
Land Management, in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base,
New Mexico, for the purpose of removing private land from the
required safety zone surrounding munitions storage bunkers at
Holloman Air Force Base. I spent a little more time looking at
this because I can't quite figure out what this is all about.
I'm wondering why the BLM has to foot the bill for this
exchange given that Holloman Air Force Base and the private
landowner seem to be the ones that benefit from the exchange.
Would you object if we force the Department of Defense and the
private land owner to pay for the cost of the exchange?
Mr. Lonnie. As we testified, Senator, generally the
proponent of a land exchange is responsible for paying for the
appraisal costs. In H.R. 486, BLM-managed lands are offered as
a solution to a problem between Holloman Air Force Base and the
Rabons. The public interest would be served if your suggestion
is adopted.
Senator Craig. Help me understand why the Federal
Government is giving up 320 acres in exchange for only 241
acres.
Mr. Lonnie. We testified that the provision in H.R. 486
waiving the 25 percent limitation on cash equalization payments
is inconsistent with section 206 process in FLPMA. Senator,
when we previously had testified on S. 4808, one of the things
that we had identified, and we applaud the sponsor for
incorporating it here, is its use of the section 206 process,
because that will assure that we use uniform appraisal
standards, so equal value and fair market value will be
captured. But we do have concerns associated with the waiving
of the 25 percent equalization payment money.
Senator Craig. Okay. I also note that several southeastern
New Mexico environmental groups claim the BLM determined that
the BLM land in question was needed for the protection of the
Sacramento Mountain prickly poppy, a Federal endangered species
contained within the boundaries of the adjoining Sacramento
Escarpment area of critical environmental concern. To your
knowledge, does the Sacramento Mountain prickly poppy occur on
the BLM lands to be traded in this exchange?
Mr. Lonnie. No, they do not. The special status species
occurs within the ACEC--area of critical environmental
concern--but not within the 320-acre parcel located outside the
ACEC.
Senator Craig. Did the agency determine that these 320
acres of the BLM land were needed for the protection of the
poppy?
Mr. Lonnie. No, there were--there are no large-scale
permitted uses in the 320-acre parcel, but a variety of casual
and day-use activities occur. The 320-acre parcel serves to
absorb land use impacts from casual and day-use activities so
that these uses do not disturb special status plant and animal
species in the neighboring ACEC.
Senator Craig. Well, my last thought here in looking at the
map, and that's all I know about this, is that by just looking
at the map, it appears that the lands the Government is giving
up should be more valuable than what they are getting. I think
you've commented on that as it relates to the appraisal
process. Do you have any additional comment or care to comment
on it?
Mr. Lonnie. Not at this time, Senator, but we would be more
than happy to work with the sponsor and the committee on any
changes that we suggested in our testimony.
Senator Craig. Okay. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much.
We've gotten you out of here slightly before 3 o'clock. Joel, I
think you had a commitment that was going to cause you to exit
at least by then. We appreciate your attentiveness to these
issues, and we'll be back to you for any corrections we feel
are necessary in working with you to move these pieces of
legislation forward.
Thank you very much, and the subcommittee will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record:]
Statement of Christopher Krupp, Staff Attorney, the Western Land
Exchange Project, Seattle, WA
testimony regarding h.r. 486
My name is Christopher Krupp, and I am the staff attorney of the
Western Land Exchange Project, a non-profit organization monitoring
federal land sales and exchanges and working for long-term substantive
reform in federal land disposal policy. I submit this testimony to urge
you to oppose H.R. 486, a bill to provide for a land exchange involving
private land and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in the vicinity
of Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
H.R. 486 circumvents two of our nation's important environmental
and public lands laws, namely the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). NEPA
would normally require the Bureau of Land Management to study the
environmental impacts of the proposed land exchange, develop a
reasonable range of alternatives to the proposal, and provide the
public with one or more opportunities to comment on the proposal. There
are very good reasons why implementing each of those NEPA elements
would benefit the land trade proposal in H.R. 486. First, studying the
environmental impacts would help determine the potential harm of
trading away 320 acres of buffer zone that protects the Sacramento
Mountains prickly poppy, a species in documented decline and known only
to exist in Otero County, New Mexico. Second, by developing a
reasonable range of alternatives, the BLM may well identify means of
acquiring the private land adjacent to the Air Force base without the
public giving up the buffer lands identified for trade in the bill.
Finally, the public comment requirements in NEPA ensure that the public
has an opportunity to weigh in on the proposal after it has learned of
the impacts and alternatives. This is usually not possible with
legislated land exchanges because such detailed information cannot be
provided in the text of land exchange bills.
H.R. 486 averts the FLPMA mandate that the difference in the
appraised value of federal and non-federal lands in a land exchange not
exceed 25 percent, with the difference to be paid in cash. H.R. 486
specifically exempts the land trade from this requirement, so if the
federal land has an appraised value twice that of the private land
adjacent to Holloman AFB, the private landowner can simply pay the
difference in cash rather than accepting a smaller amount of BLM land.
There is no valid reason for this exemption from FLPMA; it simply
guarantees the private party that it can acquire all the land it is
seeking, whatever the ultimate appraised values.
FLPMA also requires that all BLM proposals conform to the agency's
relevant Resource Management Plan (RMP). Prior to H.R. 486's
introduction, BLM, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), determined that the 320 acres of federal land must be
retained in public ownership because of the land's importance in
protecting the prickly poppy on adjacent public land. The BLM would
therefore not make the trade identified in this bill, because it would
violate the RMP covering the land at issue. H.R. 486 circumvents the
agencies' informed decision regarding this land in order to reward a
single constituent.
It is important to note that the eminent domain/condemnation
proceedings that were first considered to acquire the private lands for
the Holloman safety zone would justly compensate the private party. In
fact, the private lands would be appraised for the same market value
under condemnation proceedings or H.R. 486. The only notable difference
is that condemnation proceedings would not provide a way for the
private party to acquire land that the BLM and FWS believe serves an
important public function. After condemnation proceedings the private
party would, of course, be able to acquire other public land in the
area that the BLM has identified for disposal in the relevant RMP.
In summary, I urge the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests to
oppose H.R. 486. The bill circumvents longstanding law enacted to
inform the public and protect the public interest, and trades away land
that the BLM has determined is essential for protecting a plant found
in only one county in the United States. A better solution to the
safety zone problem at Holloman is for the Department of Defense to
acquire the private land by the usual condemnation/eminent domain
proceedings. Thank you for your consideration.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 20, 2005.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau of
Land Management to questions submitted following the May 11, 2005,
hearing on S. 100, the Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005, and
H.R. 486, land exchange near Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Subcommittee. Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Supplemental Questions
s. 100--the pitkin county land exchange act of 2005
Question 1. Please provide as estimate of the value of the parcel
of BLM land to be exchanged pursuant to S. 100.
Answer. The BLM has not undertaken an appraisal of the parcel
identified for exchange in S. 100. In addition, we do not have
appraisals on any comparable parcels in the area. However, a very rough
estimate of the value of the 40-acre parcel would be between $500,000
and $1,500,000.
h.r. 486--land exchange near holloman air force base, new mexico
Question 1. As you noted in your testimony, the BLM lands to be
exchanged are designated for retention. At the subcommittee hearing you
testified that the BLM could support the exchange, although you did not
recommend alternate lands or ask for any special restrictions on the
lands to be exchanged. Has the BLM's position changed on the value of
retaining the lands to be exchanged under this bill?
Answer. The BLM's position on the value of retaining the 320-acre
parcel identified in H.R. 486 has not changed; the parcel is identified
for retention in the BLM's ``Otero County Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern/White Sands Resource Management Plan Amendment,''
(RMPA) of December 19, 1997.
This dispute is between the Rabons and the military. While we
believe that the public interest would be better served if the Rabons
and the military were able to agree on a price at which the military
could purchase the 241 acres from the Rabons, the BLM could support the
use of public lands as a means to resolve this dispute, provided the
BLM is reimbursed for all its costs associated with this exchange.
The BLM supports land exchanges of equal value, and the Rabons'
initial land exchange proposal of December 23, 2003, (rangeland for
rangeland) appeared to meet this standard. However, in September of
2004, Representative Pearce indicated to the Department that the Rabons
were no longer interested in acquiring the inholdings identified in
their proposal, but instead would convey their 241 acres to the
military in exchange for acquiring a 320-acre parcel of public land
located adjacent to the Sacramento Escarpment ACEC. These are the lands
identified in H.R. 486.
Thus, the exchange was transformed from one of approximately equal
land values to one with significantly disparate land values. Our
position on H.R. 486, that we could support the proposed exchange if
amendments were adopted, reflects our intent that the public receive
full value for the 320-acre parcel and the BLM is reimbursed for costs
if Congress directs that this parcel be conveyed into private
ownership.
Question 2. Your testimony references an earlier proposal to
exchange the lands for ``BLM inholdings'' on the Rabon ranch. Were
those lands designated for disposal? Would the BLM support an exchange
for those lands? If both parties were to agree to that exchange, could
it be handled administratively without any Congressional intervention?
Answer. The BLM inholdings on the Rabons' ranch were identified for
disposal in the BLM's 1986 White Sands Resource Management Plan (the
disposal designation was not affected by the 1997 RMPA).
The BLM could support an exchange of these lands as part of a
comprehensive solution, described in more detail below, involving the
Rabons and the Corps (or other Defense Department entity acting on
behalf of Holloman AFB). Such a comprehensive solution could be handled
administratively without congressional intervention, and might be
structured as follows:
Part 1: Land Exchange between the Rabons and the BLM under Sec. 206
of FLPMA. The BLM's authorization to do land exchanges is provided in
Section 206 of FLPMA. The Rabons convey their 241 acres to the BLM, in
exchange for BLM lands of equal value selected from the ``inholdings''
that were identified by the Rabons in their December 2003 proposal and
reflected in H.R. 4808 as introduced.
Part 2: DOD withdrawal application under Sec. 204(a) of FLPMA. The
Corps (or other Defense Department entity acting on behalf of Holloman
AFB) files with the Secretary of the Interior an application to
withdraw the 241 acres of newly acquired federal land for the exclusive
use of Holloman AFB.
Question 3. You mentioned in your testimony that the private lands
covered by the bill were formerly under a restrictive easement. Please
provide the Committee with the history of those easements, their
current status (including why they are no longer in effect), and the
current status of any neighboring lands and whether they currently have
or may require easements in place.
Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on behalf of Holloman
AFB, maintains the full record of easements associated with the
installation. However, our records show that no restrictive easements
currently exist for the 241 acres.
Question 4. In November, 2003, the Department of the Interior
testified before the Committee in favor of a bill (S. 1209 in the 108th
Congress) to authorize a legislative taking of certain lands in
Washington County, Utah. Under that legislation, the value of the lands
acquired by the United States would be determined by a Federal court.
Would the Department similarly favor such a solution in this case? Do
you have any information that would guide the Committee as to the
likely value of the Rabon lands?
Answer. If legislation providing for a legislative taking of the
241 acres of private land located within the munitions storage security
zone at Holloman AFB were introduced, the Department of the Interior
would defer to the Department of Defense concerning a position on such
a bill. Such a solution would return resolution of this issue to the
two principal parties: the Rabons and the military.
The BLM was not a party to the efforts by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, on behalf of Holloman AFB, to acquire the 241 acres from the
Rabons. However, it is our understanding that the Corps prepared an
appraisal of the 241 acres. On August 3, 1999, the Corps sent the
Rabons a letter offering $20,000 to purchase a restrictive easement;
the Rabons rejected this offer.
Question 5. Your testimony referred to the Department of the
Interior's significant concerns with prior legislation concerning this
issue (H.R. 4808 in the 108th Congress). Did the Department have any
concern with the specific lands to be exchanged under that bill? What
would the Department's position be if H.R. 486 is amended to authorize
the exchange of lands identified in H.R. 4808?
Answer. Our concern with the specific lands identified for exchange
in H.R. 4808 as introduced on July 9, 2004, was that the lands to be
exchanged be of equal value or that the bill allow for an equal value
exchange. The Department would support an amendment to H.R. 486 which
provided for a legislated exchange of lands as identified in H.R. 4808.
Such an amendment would greatly reduce, although not eliminate, the
disparity in values of the lands to be exchanged. We urge the Committee
to provide for equal values in a legislated land exchange, for example,
by reducing the number of acres the BLM is to convey to the Rabons
until the land values are equalized. Alternatively, if Congress directs
the BLM to sell to the Rabons the lands identified in H.R. 4808 as
introduced, we believe the public should receive fair market value and
the BLM be reimbursed for its costs associated with the sale.
Question 6. If H.R. 486 is enacted without amendment, how would the
BLM manage the parcel it would acquire?
Answer. The 241 acres were identified by Holloman AFB as essential
to its munitions storage security zone. The land would be acquired by
the Federal government for that purpose. As such, the acquired land
would not be available for multiple use management under Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. The Secretary of the Interior would issue a
Public Land Order withdrawing the acquired land and adding it to the
military lands withdrawn under Public Land Order Number 833.
Question 7. You expressed concern with the provision of the bill
that waives the 25 percent limitation in section 206(b) of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); if that provision were
removed, how would the exchange be completed, assuming the values of
the two parcels differ by more than 25 percent?
Answer. If H.R. 486 were amended to eliminate the waiver of Section
206(b) of FLPMA, the exchange would proceed in accordance with Section
206 of FLPMA. Specifically, an appraiser would prepare a preliminary
estimate of the values of the Rabons' 241 acres and the 320-acre parcel
of public land in order to determine a gross estimate of the disparity
in values. Based on this preliminary estimate, the number of acres of
public land to be conveyed out of Federal ownership would be adjusted
(reduced) to the point that the land values are approximately equal. A
final appraisal would be prepared on the adjusted acreage.
Question From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. I would like to follow up on previous questions I
submitted concerning the proposed land exchange near Holloman Air Force
Base. To better understand the history of the land exchange proposed in
H.R. 486, I would like you to include in your response any information
(such as correspondence among the parties, any valuations of the
various lands considered, or information on alternative proposals
considered) that may give further explanation of your answers. Since
the Army Corps of Engineers was the original negotiator tasked with
resolving the safety zone issue, please also provide any documentation
you may have related to their efforts to arrive at a solution.
Answer. The informated requested in the above question has been
retained in subcommittee files.