[Senate Hearing 109-347]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-347
SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES; CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO COFFMAN COVE, AK;
AMEND PUBLIC LAW 97-435; LAND EXCHANGE IN LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST; AND
CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN CLARK COUNTY, NV
=======================================================================
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. 405 S. 1522
S. 1541 S. 1548
H.R. 482
__________
NOVEMBER 2, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-821 WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (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
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii.................. 2
Berkley, Hon. Shelley, U.S. Representative From Nevada........... 23
Cameron, Scott J., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance,
Accountability, and Human Resources, National Forest System,
Forest Service, Department of the Interior..................... 3,12
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator From Washington............... 20
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Manning, Gloria, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, Department of the Interior..................... 14
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 22
Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, U.S. Representative From Texas........... 22
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada....................... 21
Walker, Randall H., Director of Aviation, Clark County, Nevada... 23
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 27
SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES; CONVEYANCE OF LAND TO COFFMAN COVE, AK;
AMEND PUBLIC LAW 97-435; LAND EXCHANGE IN LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST; AND
CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN CLARK COUNTY, NV
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands & Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to thank
you all for attending and my apologies for running a few
moments late. To be honest I lost track of time. I'm sorry.
Let me first welcome our witnesses. I would like to welcome
Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief for our National Forest
System, from the U.S. Forest Service, and Scott Cameron--Scott,
good to see you--Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance
Accountability and Human Resources, from the Department of the
Interior.
We thank you for coming to testify on the bills that are
before this committee. We will be taking testimony on S. 405, a
bill introduced by Senators Reid and Ensign to provide for the
conveyance of certain public lands in Clark County, Nevada, for
use as a heliport; S. 1541, a bill introduced by our colleague,
who is here, Senator Danny Akaka, to provide, conserve and
restore public lands, administered by the Department of the
Interior or the Forest Service, and adjacent lands through
cooperative cost share grants to control and mitigate the
spread of invasive species and for other purposes; S. 1548, a
bill introduced by Senator Murkowski to provide for the
conveyance of certain Forest Service lands in the city of
Coffman Cove, Alaska; S. 1552, a bill introduced by Senator
Cantwell to amend Public Law 97-435 to extend the authorization
for the Secretary of the Interior to release certain conditions
contained in a patent concerning certain lands conveyances by
the United States to Eastern Washington University until
December 31, 2009; and last, H.R. 482, a bill introduced by
Representative Neugebauer to provide for a land exchange
involving Federal lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the
State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. But before we get
to our witnesses I'd like to turn to Senator Akaka for opening
statements he would like to make. None of the rest of our
colleagues are here, so Danny, let me turn to you before we
take testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. I love to work with you, and here we go again on this
one. I want to thank you for holding this hearing, which
includes my invasive species bill, which is S. 1541, the Public
Lands Conservation and Protection Act. Its acronym is PLPCA, so
if you don't mind I'll just call it the ``invasives bill.''
Mr. Chairman, I know that you and I share a mutual interest
in this topic because of your strong leadership on the weed
bill, of which I was a co-sponsor. Invasive species can be
economically devastating on grazing lands and in forest and
timber areas. So I was very pleased when the weed bill was
enacted in 2004, thanks to the chairman.
Public lands are under significant threat from invasive
species of all types. This bill provides a framework for
helping States, and local groups in partnership with the
Federal Government, to address the serious economic and native
habitat threats from a broad range of terrestrial invasive
species such as amphibians, insects, reptiles and
subterrestrial animals, such as nematodes.
My invasive bill, S. 1541, authorizes the major Federal
land management agencies to undertake a competitive grants
program to assist States, counties, non-profits and private
landowners in partnership with the Federal Government to
conduct assessments, control projects and rapid response
eradication projects for invasive species. There are grants for
three types of activities: voluntary State assessment of needs,
if States have not already conducted such assessments; grants
for results-oriented control projects to contain or eradicate
invasives; and grants that are expedited for rapid response
when a new species invades a State.
My State of Hawaii has been consistent in its message that
rapid response is necessary to help it combat new invasive
species. The National Park Subcommittee held a field hearing on
invasive species in and around national parks at Hawaii
Volcanoes National Park in August. The message came through
very clearly that there are enormous needs and challenges to
control invasive species in and around national park lands. The
Hawaii county-level invasive species councils testified that
partnerships are the key to bridging jurisdictional and
resource gaps. Partnerships help tap the collective knowledge
of local scientists and focus problem-solving on the most
pressing invasive species issues.
They also help generate and leverage funding to get workers
on the ground when Federal agencies are unable to take direct
action. In addition, partnerships can help to protect public
lands from invasions of exotic species as they approach the
boundaries of national forests, parks and grazing lands.
The field hearing made it clear that we must do more at the
national level, both in terms of new authorizing legislation
and increased appropriations, to allow the Federal Government
to be a better partner with States and non-profit entities if
we are to make a difference on this issue.
The invasive species bill is supported by the National
Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species. They have
submitted testimony for the record. It is also supported by the
Hawaii Department of Land and National Resources and the
Department of Forestry and Wildlife, which supports the
statewide Hawaii Invasive Species Council.
The Council was created in 2003 by the Hawaii State
legislature to provide cabinet-level leadership for the fight
against invasives. The Governor subsequently committed $4
million in new State funding to improve programs targeting
invasive species.
Our Federal lands in Hawaii benefit from the increased
support to fight invasives, but more needs to be done by
Federal agencies and through partnerships.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our
distinguished panel of witnesses today and comments they have
on the bill.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I must leave for another
meeting, but I look forward to working with you and with the
Department of the Interior and the Forest Service on addressing
the challenges of invasive species across the Nation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator Akaka, we can ask Scott Cameron to
go first and give testimony on your legislation, if you wish to
stay and ask any questions following that, and then we can
proceed with the rest. All right? Let us do that.
Let me introduce, once again, Scott Cameron, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Performance, Accountability and Human
Resources, Department of the Interior.
Scott, if in your testimony you would speak specifically--
well, you can go through them all, but specifically to S. 1541.
Then we can get back to the Senator before he leaves. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT J. CAMERON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Cameron. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman
and Senator Akaka. Let me start off by congratulating you both
on your leadership on what I know Secretary Norton considers to
be an extremely important issue, invasive species.
There are some estimates that half of our endangered
species are there, at least in part because invasive species
are eating them or encroaching on their habitat or otherwise
causing problems. Invasive species cause a wide variety of
environmental and economic problems, whether they are invasive
animals, plants, or potentially, microorganisms as well.
So congratulations and our thanks to both of you for
putting a lot of your personal effort into this topic.
Mr. Chairman, I am Scott Cameron, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Performance, Accountability and Human Resources
at the Department of the Interior and I am pleased to be able
to testify on S. 1541, the Public Lands Protection and
Conservation Act of 2005. We recognize that invasive species
are a significant natural resource management challenge on
Departmental lands--indeed, all lands across the country. These
species don't pay attention to boundary lines at all and
therefore, we need to take a landscape approach, rather than an
organization unit by organization unit approach, in dealing
with them.
We appreciate the continued interest and commitment of this
community and Senator Akaka, in particular, in addressing the
increasing threat of invasive species on native species and
their habitats. The Department whole-heartedly, very strongly
concurs with the principles embodies in this legislation, but
we actually believe that the goals of the legislation can
largely be met with existing authorities.
There are three or four points that I would like to make in
my oral testimony that are arduously covered in the written
testimony. I assume the written testimony will be incorporated
into the record.
Senator Craig. Both of your full statements and testimony
will be a part of the record. Thank You.
Mr. Cameron. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The first
point I'd like to make is, with the exception of one of
Interior's bureaus, all of our bureaus right now have the legal
authority to work with partners, whether they are private
landowners or local governments or State governments or non-
profit groups outside their borders. The one bureau that does
not have that authority is our National Park Service. Senator
Akaka and his colleague, Senator Wyden, introduced S. 1288, not
too many months ago, that would fix that problem. That would
give the National Park Service authority to work with its
neighbors to deal with invasive species problems. And it's
worth noting that this current liability on the part of the
Park Service is not something that is specific to Hawaii or
Oregon.
I was at a meeting in Albuquerque in 2004 to talk about
Tamarisk (salt cedar), which is a very significant problem in
the West, and the Executive Director of the New Mexico
Association of Conservation Districts, Debbie Hughes, came up
to me and said, ``Gosh, I wish we had the authority to work
with the Parks Service off of their lands. There are a lot of
good things we could do together, but the Park Service can't
partner with us right now.'' So, I am hoping that Debbie will
have some conversations with Senator Bingaman and Senator
Domenici before the committee has an opportunity to consider S.
1288.
But clearly, this committee's movement on S. 1288 would be
very useful. The administration, subsequent to the introduction
of that bill, sends up its own legislation, coincidentally.
It's very, very similar. So, we might want to work with the
committee to tweak S. 1288 a little bit around the edges, but
fundamentally, it would be great if that bill could move.
The second point I'd like to make is I agree whole-
heartedly with Senator Akaka's observations about rapid
response and early detection. As Senator Craig knows very well,
it's really easy to get rid of a new weed in Idaho, that's
occupying 100 acres of land. Ones that occupies 10,000 acres of
land or 100,000 acres of land, you've got a very different
proposition on your hands. I have recently asked the U.S.
Geological Survey to work with our colleague agencies in the
National Invasive Species Council to organize a meeting next
spring on early detection and rapid response. One of the
problems that we have is, while we may have the authority to do
early detection and rapid response, we don't necessarily have
the research, the mechanisms, the systems in place to figure
out where the problem has just popped up in time to do
something about it.
So, this meeting next April--and I would certainly welcome
any participation by committee staff. In this meeting, we would
explore how we could really work with NGO's, work with the
State universities, work with the State governments and really
craft a National Early Detection and Rapid Response System.
What pieces exist now? What pieces are missing? What are the
priority pieces to build? And it may well be that there are
some legislative-related outcomes from that conference that
this committee might want to explore.
The last point I want to make on S. 1541 is that it
addresses the fact that the administration for 2 years now has
done, through the National Invasive Species Council, an
interagency performance budget cross-cut. We're grateful that
the sponsors of the bill have acknowledged that effort. I would
anticipate, since the administration has done this for 2 years
in a row, that we are likely to continue pursuing interagency
performance budget cross-cut in fiscal year 2007. Assuming my
assumption is correct, I'd like to respectively suggest that
perhaps the most effective thing this committee could do to
promote and enhance the value of that cross-cut might be as
part of its own fiscal year 2007 budget oversight process, to
perhaps have an oversight hearing on the interagency
performance budget cross-cut on invasive species. No
congressional subcommittee or committee has ever done that in
the past, and frankly, nothing focuses the mind of bureaucrats
like the prospects of a congressional oversight hearing. And it
would be helpful to us in the political leadership of the
administration to be able to signal to our co-workers that the
Congress cares enough about this topic to actually have an
oversight hearing on this invasive species cross-cut. So, I
wanted to throw that idea out for the committee.
That's all I had to say in my oral testimony on S. 1541.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cameron follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Cameron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Performance, Accountability, and Human Resources, Department of the
Interior, on S. 1541
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Scott Cameron,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance, Accountability, and Human
Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior. I want to thank you for
providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity to testify
before you regarding S. 1541, the ``Public Lands Protection and
Conservation Act of 2005.'' We recognize that invasive species are a
significant natural resource management challenge on Departmental
lands, and particularly in island ecosystems like Hawaii. We appreciate
the continued interest and commitment of this Committee, and Senator
Akaka in particular, in addressing the increasing threat of invasive
species on native species and their habitats. The Department concurs
with the principles embodied in the legislation, but we believe that
the goals of the legislation can be met within existing authorities.
Let me begin by providing you with some background on this issue,
followed by brief comments on the legislation.
programs promoting partnerships
Over the past 75 years, we have worked extensively with our
partners in states, tribes, with sportsmen, ranchers, and farmers, as
well as with our colleagues at the Department of Agriculture, the Army
Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency to provide
technical assistance and grants to help states and private landowners,
among others, achieve their land management and conservation goals,
while providing benefits for migratory birds, fish, and other species.
On a day-to-day basis, we work closely with nongovernmental
organizations and private landowners to improve efforts for cooperative
weed management in the West, water management districts in Florida, and
small landowners everywhere who want to restore habitat for fish and
wildlife. For example, the Olaa Kilauea Partnership on the island of
Hawaii is a cooperative land management effort involving State and
federal entities and willing private landowners with the goals of
enhancing the long-term survival of native ecosystems and managing
420,000 acres across multiple ownership boundaries. Management and
research of this partnership are currently focused on removing or
reducing impacts from feral animals such as pigs, invasive plants and
non-native predators, restoring native habitat and endangered species,
and providing education and work training in fencing, native plant
horticulture and other conservation work to Kulani Correctional
Facility inmates. In addition to the National Park Service, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey within the
Department, other partners include the Puu Makaala Natural Area
Reserve, the Kamehameha Schools, the USDA Forest Service, and the
Nature Conservancy. The partnership has jointly fenced 14,100 acres on
State and private lands and eliminated the feral pig population from
9,800 acres, while controlling feral pigs in an additional 4,300 acres.
There are also a large number of grant programs administered by the
Department that could be potential tools for addressing invasive
species.
The Department's support of the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation's ``Pulling Together Initiative'' and other programs also
provides matching funds for invasive species management, leveraging
funds from other Invasive Species Council member agencies and non-
federal partners. The cooperative conservation component of the
challenge cost share programs in the Bureau of Land Management, NPS,
and FWS also emphasize building partnerships for the conservation of
natural resources and provide expanded opportunities for land managers
to work with landowners and others to form creative conservation
partnerships.
Through the Secretary's Cooperative Conservation Initiative, bureau
matching funds are made available to landowners and other cooperators
at state, tribal, and local levels. Through partnerships built by
programs in this initiative, the Department's land managers can work
with landowners and other citizen stewards to tackle invasive species,
reduce erosion along stream banks, or enhance habitat for threatened
and endangered species. Among other things, in fiscal year 2005 we have
funded through this initiative projects that are aimed at the
eradication and control of tamarisk, Russian olive, and other invasive
plants, and reclamation of impacted lands. Some of these projects, such
as the Moab Partners for Restoration, target community and youth
projects.
Our State and Tribal Wildlife Grants programs are designed to
provide financial assistance for development and implementation of
state-or tribally-directed programs and individual projects that
address the needs of the species and habitats most in need of
conservation, address the species conservation needs that are most in
need of funding, and leverage federal funding through cost-sharing
provisions. These programs exemplify our cooperative conservation
approach by helping states tailor conservation efforts so that they
best fit local conditions, and provides yet another tool for states to
use to address the significant impacts of invasive species on native
habitats.
FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife, which promotes private
landowner cost-share projects for habitat restoration, includes funds
targeted for control of invasive plants and subsequent restoration. The
Partners Program has worked with private landowners across the Nation
to remove, burn, biologically control, and otherwise combat invasive
plants on thousands of acres of wetlands and upland. This control and
management of invasive plants is also part of BLM's Partners Against
Weeds Strategy Plan, BLM's Strategic Plan, and the National Fire Plan.
The Partners Against Weeds program funds cooperative efforts with
landowners to control invasive species and cooperative outreach and
education projects with schools and local and county governments.
Departmental bureaus also partner with other federal and non-
federal entities on research projects. The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey,
and Bureau of Reclamation partner with the Agriculture Research Service
and the U.S. Forest Service, both within the Department of Agriculture,
and university scientists to develop and test biological control
agents, to conduct studies of stream flow management for vegetation
control, and on studies of hybridization to better predict the
potential future spread of invasive species. The USGS also has
partnerships with state and county weed departments, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others aimed at mapping
currently invaded sites and identifying new invasions.
Finally, the BOR leads, along with USDA's Agricultural Research
Service, the Saltcedar Biological Control Consortium, a task force
comprised of over 40 agencies, and BOR, in collaboration with Los
Alamos National Laboratory, also develops new technologies for
determining the amount of water lost from the Rio Grande River due to
tamarisk and for restoration potential based upon soil salinity and
chemical composition.
As you can see, cooperative conservation through the use of
partnerships and challenge cost-share funding has long been a hallmark
of the Department's approach to invasive species control and
management.
crosscut budget for fiscal year 2006
The Administration is also working toward an interagency approach
to invasive species control and since the 2005 budget has presented a
unified invasive species performance-based crosscut budget through the
National Invasive Species Council. Through this interagency effort,
Council agencies work together to develop common goals, strategies, and
performance measures. Under this performance umbrella, new and base
funds will be applied to early detection and rapid response as well as
control and management focused geographically (Florida, for example)
and by species (Emerald ash borer and tamarisk, for example).
While we have made significant strides, we do continue to have
challenges in coordinating budget decisions across departments.
However, we continue to improve this important management tool.
In 2006, the Department will focus invasives work on three priority
geo-regional areas that also contain an abundance of invasives targeted
by National Invasive Species Council priorities. The bureaus submitted
coordinated, joint budget requests for each of these areas, developed
in each case by an inter-bureau team. Increases totaling $2.3 million
are proposed for the three areas, and base funding will also be
redirected to the coordinated efforts.
departmental views on s. 1541
With the above discussion in mind, let me turn to S. 1541.
Generally, the ``Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005''
would establish grant programs to states to assist in the management of
invasive species and would create a rapid response component allowing
states to request assistance. Finally, the Office of Management and
Budget, in consultation with the National Invasive Species Council, is
to carry out a comprehensive budget analysis and summary of Federal
programs ranked in the thematic categories of the National Invasive
Species Management Plan (2001).
While we appreciate the goals of the bill, we have some concerns
with the legislation.
First, the Department notes that almost all of the actions called
for in S. 1541 can be achieved within existing authorities. As
discussed in some detail above, we have and will continue to support
state and private invasive species management activities. Both BLM and
FWS provide funding support through cost share grant programs to
promote work on non-federal lands. Congress has also provided authority
for the Department, through the BLM and the FWS, to enter into
cooperative agreements with non-federal landowners in which invasive
species issues could be addressed. The Administration recently
forwarded proposed legislation which provides NPS with this authority.
Enacting this proposal would be an effective way to address lands
neighboring national parks.
In addition, the President signed Public Law No. 108-412 on October
30, 2004, which provides additional authority to the Secretary of
Agriculture under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) to
provide financial and technical assistance to control or eradicate
noxious weeds. That law specifically creates a rapid response program,
allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into cooperative
agreements with weed management entities to ensure rapid eradication of
noxious weeds.
We also greatly appreciate the focus this legislation places on the
development of rapid response mechanisms in states, local governments,
nongovernmental entities, and tribes. However, the Department has
existing authority under which it may provide financial assistance for
this purpose, including the general grant-making authority under the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956 which allows the Secretary to make grants for the benefit of fish
and wildlife.
We recognize the need for a comprehensive view of invasive species
programs, but the development of a crosscut budget should be the
responsibility of the National Invasive Species Council; we cannot
support changing this to the Office of Management and Budget, as
proposed in S. 1541. The Council was created by Executive Order 13112
to coordinate federal invasive species policy and programs and, as
mentioned previously, has already developed crosscut budgets in 2005
and 2006. The Council should retain this responsibility.
Finally, we have concerns about the Congressional expectations that
might arise from the sizeable authorization levels contained in this
legislation which would authorize assessment grants at $25 million for
FY 2006, control grants at $175 million for FY 2006, and rapid response
assistance at $50 million for FY 2006, and ``such sums as are
necessary'' for FYs 2007-2010. We cannot support these authorization
levels, and note that any new funding provided for the program
authorized by this legislation would have to compete with existing
programs and other Administration priorities.
conclusion
The Department is committed to identifying, assessing, and acting
to address invasive species. We agree with the principles embodied in
this legislation and will continue to work with our partners to develop
a more effective assessment and control strategy for responding to
animal and plant invasions. Our goal is to ensure the protection of our
land and water resources and to promote the restoration of important
wildlife habitat impacted by invasive species.
Again, while we share the Committee's concerns and interest in this
issue, we note that almost all of the actions called for in this
legislation can be achieved within existing authorities. We offer to
work with the Committee to ensure that existing programs and
authorities are effectively targeted to address the Committee's
concerns. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to
answer any questions that you might have.
Senator Craig. Why don't we stop you there and see if the
Senator has any questions. I have a few, and then you can give
the balance of your testimony and we'll turn to Gloria for
hers. Thank you.
Any questions of Scott?
Senator Akaka. Thank you for the opportunity you are giving
me to ask my questions. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. I appreciate
the level of activity and commitment of USFS to fight against
invasive species. There's no question in my mind that you want
to do all you can to work on the problem.
My question is whether you think or you believe the
Department has been as effective as possible, given the
authorities you currently have, in fighting invasive species in
all States. If so, why are we still struggling to contain
invasives on Federal lands? In particular, in Hawaii, we're
trying to set up our own programs. As I mentioned, even the
State, the Governor and the legislature, have set aside money
to take care of these invasives. I think S. 1541 will provide a
broad approach to fighting invasives of many species and the
necessary funding to help out. So, I'd like to hear comments
from you. It could be about the funding as well, but why is it
that we are not really--I don't believe we are as effective as
we can be here, at this time.
Mr. Cameron. Senator, Mr. Chairman, I would definitely
agree with you, Senator, that we are not as effective as we
could be, should be, or want to be. I think we are getting
better at it from year to year and the performance budget
cross-cut has been a tool for doing that.
Two years ago, for the first time ever, we actually got
agencies to sit down and try to develop common goals, common
strategies and common performance measures as part of this
budget cross-cut and that itself was a watershed event. The
product is still very much a work in progress.
I think it's worth making the observation that invasive-
species-type projects are competing very well for funding with
the existing grant programs of the Interior Department. We did
a survey based on fiscal year 2004 grants for the Secretary's
new cooperative conservation program and our preexisting
challenge cost share grant programs. And even in fiscal year
2004, without putting any deliberate emphasis on invasives
projects, nationwide, invasive species issues or projects, were
taking about 25 percent of the grant money for those two
national grant programs. So, I think invasive species projects
compete very well for existing funds for exactly the reasons,
Senator, that you and the Chairman are aware of: the
significant economic and environmental aspects.
Clearly, whenever there is a new statutory authorization,
particularly if it involves a lot of money, we worry about the
expectations that that may set on the part of the Congress.
Every dollar at Interior has to be traded off versus every
other dollar. So, rather than creating a new grant program
with, perhaps, a new bureaucracy to manage that grant program,
what we are trying to do is raise the profile of the invasive
species issues so they compete better, both on the merits and
because of the importance of the topic within existing grant
programs.
Senator Akaka. I thank you for that response, Mr. Cameron.
We still look for it, of course, and you touched on it, to
working with private landowners in this challenge to address
invasive species. And I hope together we can work that out
somehow, but in the meantime, invasive species--not only in
Hawaii, but across the country--are spreading and we need to
get to it before it really overcomes our country. I've heard
from my colleagues, from the ranch land types, and I was amazed
at the kind of invasive species they have to contend with and
they would certainly, I'm sure, support this kind of program.
So I thank you so much for your consideration and look
forward to working at a program that can help the Nation. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator Akaka, thank you, very much.
Scott, let me ask a couple of questions, because these
kinds of concerns come and they are my concerns, and weed
management legislation that is now in place in law, that I've
been a part of with others, I'm always cautious on the wording
we use for how it might get interpreted somewhere down the
line. I like to think of the Endangered Species Act, itself,
and what was originally intended by Congress and what has
mutated out of the courts over the years, that is now being
used as an obstructionist piece of legislation, to stop all
activities on public lands, in many instances or otherwise. If
it had been used the way it was intended, it would mitigate an
activity to protect a species, but allow activities to
continue.
What I am speaking of is the definition of invasive
species. I believe in S. 1541. And in speaking of that Scott,
you say--the term invasive species means, with respect to a
particular ecosystem, any animal, plant, or organism or micro-
organism, including biological material of the animal, plant or
other organism that is capable of propagating the species that
is not native to the ecosystem, and the introduction of which
causes, or is likely to cause, economic harm, environmental
harm or harm to human health. Now, is there any species that
has relocated or invaded from one continent to another that
wouldn't fit that definition?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, yes, there are quite a few and
we eat them all the time.
Senator Craig. Well, I'm saying this with a bit a humor,
but is the pineapple native to Hawaii?
Senator Akaka. No.
Senator Craig. No. That's my point.
Mr. Cameron. Right.
Senator Craig. No, we don't yet, but somebody might and
that's my concern about terminology. Please proceed.
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, I think you've hit on a very
good point. A species that could be completely benign, say in
New England, might cause real problems in Arizona. Senator
Martinez's largemouth bass in Florida are just great in
Florida, but you probably would not want to stock them on top
of endangered salmon in the Pacific Northwest. It might have--
you might lose your salmon.
So, a species' invasiveness is really reflected at an
ecosystem level, a local level. And you are very right, I
think, to be cautious and anxious about putting together a list
of species that always and everywhere are going to be
considered bad. I somewhat humorously responded that we eat
wheat and we eat rice all of the time, and those are certainly
not species that are native to North America, but they are very
valuable and we all enjoy pineapples as well. So, to the extent
that we can deal with invasive species issues on a local or
regional level and resist the temptation to Nationalize our
approach, I think we are better off.
Senator Craig. Well, could you provide me with the
Department of the Interior's definition of economic harm,
environmental harm, or harm to human health?
Mr. Cameron. We could make a run at it, Senator. I don't
think there is enshrined in any official way a definition on
our part, but we could certainly elaborate a bit and perhaps
provide some examples.
Senator Craig. Is there a plant that is introduced that is
used to re-vegetate or, say, cut banks and highways that might
cause some environmental harm? And how would the Department of
the Interior utilize the definition of S. 1541 to decide how to
balance the economic good of a plant against potential
environmental harm that could be caused by this plant?
Mr. Cameron. It's not an easy thing to do, Mr. Chairman,
but what we'll ideally do is a risk assessment, where on case-
by-case basis, really a watershed-by-watershed basis, you would
evaluate the benefits, whether they are environmental or
economic, versus what you can infer, using hopefully some
degree of scientific basis, the risks might be, both economic
and environmental. So, I can certainly imaging a situation
where, given our difficulty in using native vegetation to
accomplish a particular programmatic need in an area, we might
decide that the smartest thing to do under the circumstances
would be to pick a non-native species. But then the question is
very carefully monitoring the results of that choice to avoid
any unintended consequences and be able to adjust for any
unintended consequences that might arise.
Senator Craig. There is no question. Because I am sitting
here thinking, the Senator from Hawaii is talking about the
concerns of Hawaii, tragically enough, and I don't mean this
humorously at all, but we have invasive species in Idaho now,
taking over control of land. Probably we have more land now
invaded than is encompassed in the entire State of Hawaii.
Idaho is not alone. Other Western States are experiencing the
same thing and, literally for decades, public land managers
have done little to nothing about it, for a variety of reasons.
Now, we're attempting to contain. In some instances, we
cannot eradicate, largely because of size and scope of it. But
to be able to detect early is critical for a new invasion, and
section 5 of S. 1541, the Public Land Protection Conservation
Act, directs the Secretary of the Interior to expedite
environmental and regulatory reviews to ensure that an outbreak
of invasive species can be addressed within 180 days of
notification.
Can the Secretary complete environmental and regulatory
reviews in 180 days now? And if not, what would have to change
to meet these requirements?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, I think the honest answer is
yes, probably, almost all of the time. I think, inevitably,
there will be some exceptions, but as a general rule, we should
be able to do it within 180 days. In fact, I would hope that,
in a truly emergency situation, we could get it done in a much
shorter amount of time than that. One of the issues, as you and
Senator Akaka both know, Mr. Chairman, is if you're dealing
with a plant that only, you know, increases its spread by 1
percent a year, then you can afford to wait for 180 days or
maybe even a year to get to the process. If you're worried
about an invasive species whose population is going to be
churning over once a week and the size of the area affected is
going to quadruple in 3 months, then you've got a very
different dynamic and you certainly have to move much more
quickly. So, we need to understand the biology of the problem
that we are dealing with and we need to look for ways to
expedite in advance, as much as possible, our environmental
compliance processing. So, we obey NEPA, obey the law that you
set up, but still deal with the on-the-ground problem.
Senator Craig. Section 4(c) of the bill directs the
Secretary to publish guidelines and solicit grant applications
within 180 days of funds being made available. Is 180 days a
reasonable amount of time to publish guidelines and solicit
grant applications?
Mr. Cameron. If you are willing to live with the very real
possibility, that the first year we do it it may not be an
idealized, you know, perfect form, then yes, I think we can do
that. But again, I'd like to emphasize that we have existing
grant programs right now that are funding invasive species
projects, and I would argue it would be simpler and
economically more efficient, in terms of not creating a new
bureaucracy, to use the existing grant programs that we have
now to deal with invasive species problems.
Senator Craig. Okay. Well, thank you. That's all the
questions I have on 1541.
Danny, any others? Thank you, very much, Senator.
Scott, why don't we return now to you for any additional
testimony. I think you have testimony on S. 405?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Then, Ms. Manning, we'll turn to you.
Please continue, Scott.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT J. CAMERON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR-- Continued
Mr. Cameron. Okay. S. 405, the bill would convey 229 acres
of public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management to
Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport. S. 405 would also
impose fees on operators for all helicopter flights that occur
over the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, which I
believe is administered by BLM. The proceeds from these fees
would be used for the management of cultural, wildlife and
wilderness resources on public lands in the State of Nevada.
Interior supports the goals of S. 405, but cannot support a
conveyance of public lands that does not include a fair market
value of return to the taxpayers for the value of those lands.
We also have concerns about the specific helicopter flight
paths over the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area that the
bill would set out. And should the committee decide to proceed
on this legislation, we'd like to have some discussions about
changing those flight paths so that, basically, they are not
buzzing a herd of desert bighorn sheep in the National
Conservation Area. We think it would be possible to avoid the
National Conservation Area on the flight paths for the
helicopters.
Those are essentially our two issues, Mr. Chairman: the
fact that the land will be conveyed without any financial
recompense to the taxpayer and the fact that we've got this
herd of desert bighorn sheep that having 90 or more helicopter
flights over a day might be a bit of a difficulty.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Cameron on S. 405 and S.
1552 follow:]
Prepared Statement of Scott J. Cameron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Performance, Accountability, and Human Resources, Department of the
Interior
s. 405
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to testify on S. 405, a bill that would convey 229 acres of
public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to Clark
County, Nevada, for its use as a heliport. S. 405 would also impose
fees on operators for all helicopter flights that occur over the Sloan
Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA) with the proceeds used for the
management of cultural, wildlife, and wilderness resources on public
lands in the State of Nevada. The Department supports the goals of S.
405, but cannot support a conveyance of public lands that does not
ensure a fair return to the public for the use of those lands.
The BLM recognizes the massive growth occurring in Clark County and
understands the need to accommodate local interests and tourism in a
way that balances local needs with important environmental
considerations. Congress chose to address these concerns through the
Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA) and subsequent
amendments that have established a sale boundary within which BLM has
worked to provide public lands to accommodate the growth in and around
Las Vegas.
The public lands proposed for conveyance in S. 405 consist of 229
acres that lie immediately west of the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area, which includes the North McCullough Wilderness Area,
and are bordered on the west by Interstate 15. These lands are adjacent
to, but fall just outside of, the SNPLMA disposal boundary. The
legislation directs the BLM to convey these lands to Clark County for
no consideration subject to valid existing rights. The BLM, as a matter
of both policy and practice, and in accordance with the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), generally requires receipt of fair
market value for public lands transferred out of public ownership. This
serves to ensure that taxpayers are fairly compensated for the removal
of public lands from federal ownership.
Given the high market value of these lands, we strongly recommend
that the bill be modified to require the receipt of a fair market value
payment for the lands to be conveyed. Alternatively and absent
legislation, the BLM could lease these lands to Clark County under the
existing authority of Section 302 of FLPMA. Under this scenario, the
Department would grant a lease to Clark County and would charge an
annual rental that reflects the market value of the land.
S. 405 also imposes a $3 conservation fee for each passenger on a
helicopter tour if any portion of the helicopter tour occurs over the
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. The bill directs the Clark
County Department of Aviation to collect these fees and deposit them in
a special account in the United States Treasury to be used by the
Secretary of the Interior for the management of cultural, wildlife, and
wilderness resources on public land in the State of Nevada. The BLM
supports the concept of this provision but recommends that the fees be
adjusted for inflation and be deposited in SNPLMA's Special Account.
This would preclude the BLM from having to establish another permanent
operating fund with essentially the same function as SNPLMA's Special
Account. It would also give the Secretary additional flexibilities, as
provided for in SNPLMA, in addressing environmental needs in Nevada in
addition to those defined in the bill.
While the Department defers to the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) regarding safety and other airspace issues, we note that the FAA
generally opposes legislative mandates for specific flight paths. The
Department of the Interior also has concerns about the flight path
identified in this legislation. The flight path as identified in the
bill, and the anticipated frequency of flights, would greatly impact
the very wilderness characteristics and visitor use values that the
Congress sought to protect and preserve when it established the Sloan
Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness
Area in the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural
Resources Act of 2002. These areas contain sites frequently used by
Native Americans and others for religious ceremonial purposes. They
also provide important migration corridors and resting, breeding, and
feeding grounds for desert bighorn sheep, which are a special status
species in Nevada. Moreover, visitor solitude and quality recreation
experiences would be diminished.
The Department of Justice advises that it has concerns regarding
inconsistencies in the bill which we would like to work with the
Committee to address.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill. We look
forward to working with the Committee to resolve the issues discussed
above and address the needs of local communities and critical
environmental issues in the State of Nevada. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
s. 1552
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 1552. This bill would amend P.L. 97-
435 by extending until December 31, 2009, authorization for the
Secretary of the Interior to release a reversionary interest contained
in the patent of lands conveyed by the United States to Eastern
Washington University. S. 1552 leaves untouched the provisions in P.L.
97-435 that protect the public interest and ensure that any transaction
is compatible with the education and recreation purposes of the
original patent. We therefore do not object to enactment of S. 1552.
In 1961, the Bureau of Land Management issued a patent (#1216646)
to Eastern Washington University for 21 acres of land on Badger Lake,
Washington, under the authority of the Recreation and Public Purposes
(R&PP) Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.). As is standard in
patents issued under the R&PP Act, this patent conveyed a restricted
title, including the condition that the lands would revert to the
United States if either the University or any successor used the land
for other than recreational and educational purposes or attempted to
transfer title to the land.
By 1979, the University concluded that the 21 acres were unsuitable
for the school's purposes and sought Congressional assistance in
exchanging the 21 acres for lands adjacent to the campus. On January 8,
1983, P.L. 97-435 was enacted. It provided a five-year period--which
expired in January of 1988--during which the University would be
allowed to sell or exchange the Badger Lake land for property more
suitable to its needs, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to
release the reverter provision so the lands could be sold or exchanged.
P.L. 97-435 also contained provisions to address the concerns of
the Department of the Interior regarding the protection of the public
interest (exchange or sale to be at fair market value) and to ensure
that any transaction would be as compatible as possible with the intent
of the initial R&PP grant (the reversionary interest currently on the
land held by the university to be placed on any land either received in
exchange or purchased with the proceeds from the sale of the land).
Also, as required by P.L. 97-435, the University and the Secretary
concluded an agreement in 1985 to implement the law.
No sale or exchange of the land occurred during the five year
period allowed under P.L. 97-435. S. 1552 would provide for a new
deadline of December 31, 2009, to provide an opportunity for Eastern
Washington University to locate land suitable for its needs.
I would be glad to answer any questions.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. Now, let's turn to
Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief of the National Forest
Systems, USDA Forest Service. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GLORIA MANNING, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEMS, FOREST SERVICE,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Originally, I was
going to give testimony on S. 1541, the Public Land Protection
and Conservation Act of 2005. But in the interest of time, and
since The Department of the Interior has given the lead, I
think it would be--if you would just accept my written
testimony, we would leave it at that. If that's okay.
Senator Craig. Okay. We'll do that. Thank you.
Ms. Manning. The next bill that I'd like to testify on is
S. 1548, Coffman Cove. This bill would convey a portion of a
15-acre Forest Service administrative site situated in the
center of a small Alaskan community, Coffman Cove, to the city
of Coffman Cove. The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture,
without consideration, to convey fee simple title to 12 acres
of the administrative site to the city.
The Department objects to S. 1548 on the basis of long-
standing policy that the Government receives market value for
such conveyances. However, the Department is sympathetic to the
needs of the city of Coffman Cove to control the future
development of its future downtown area.
The Forest Service played a central role in the development
of the community. In the 1960's, Coffman Cove was a logging
camp and work site. Logs were harvested from the surrounding
Tongass National Forest. Eventually, the community developed
around the Forest Service administrative site.
Should the subcommittee choose to move the bill, the
Department would like to work with the subcommittee on
amendments that would improve the accuracy and management
efficiency.
The second bill is H.R. 482, the Pine Springs Land
Exchange. H.R. 482 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
exchange with the Lubbock Christian University all right, title
and interest in approximately 80 acres of National Forest
System land within the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico,
upon receipt of acceptable title to approximately 80 acres of
non-Federal land. The university has operated a summer camp in
the Lincoln National Forest for over 40 years on 40 acres that
it owns. The University seeks to exchange 80 acres that it owns
elsewhere in the forest for 80 acres immediately adjacent to
the camp that they now manage. The bill directs that the
exchange be equal in value, that the appraisal conform to the
uniform appraisal standards for Federal land acquisition, and
that the proponent of the exchange and the United States share
the costs of implementing the exchange equally.
While the Department is not opposed to the exchange, we
would like to work with the subcommittee and the bill's
sponsors on amendments to insure that land management issues
related to floodplains and wetlands are adequately addressed.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Manning follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, Forest Service, Department Of Agriculture, on S. 1541,
S. 1548, and H.R. 482
Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to provide the Department views on S. 1541, the ``Public Land
Protection and Conservation Act of 2005''; S. 1548, to provide for the
conveyance of certain Forest Service land to the city of Coffman Cove,
Alaska; and H.R. 482, to provide for a land exchange involving Federal
lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico.
s. 1541--public land protection and conservation
S. 1541 would establish a new grant program to assess and control
the spread of invasive species across the United States, and would
authorize financial assistance to respond rapidly to outbreaks of
invasive species. The Department concurs with the principles embodied
in the legislation, but we believe that the goals of the legislation
can be met within existing authorities.
The assistance program that this legislation would establish
consists of several elements. Assessment grants, administered by the
Secretary of the Interior, would provide funds to a state to identify
the occurrence and extent of invasive species within the state and
develop management priorities to address them. Control grants would be
available to public or private entities and Indian tribes to carry out,
in partnership with a Federal agency, control projects for the
management or eradication of invasive species on public land or
adjacent land. This grant program would be administered by the
Secretary of the Interior and includes a requirement to consult with
the Secretary of Agriculture regarding projects conducted on National
Forest System lands. A third program would authorize assistance to
states, local governments, public or private entities, and Indian
tribes, to rapidly respond to invasive species outbreaks. A total of
$250 million would be authorized for these three programs for fiscal
year 2006.
The Forest Service, among other USDA agencies, has several
authorities and grant programs that allow it to address the invasive
species threat in a variety of ways. We directly manage approximately
193 million acres across the National Forest System. We also provide
technical assistance and administer a nationwide grant program to
support cooperative invasive species management for all the Nation's
forested lands--urban, state, private, federal, and tribal lands--
through our State and Private Forestry organization. The Research and
Development organization provides solutions in addressing some of the
most significant invasive species. Our responsibilities extend across
the United States, from Alaska and Hawaii to the Caribbean and New
England.
The Forest Service's long-term vision is to halt the increasing
threat of invasive species and begin to reduce impacts and spread of
invasive species across the United States. The Forest Service works to
achieve these goals by using a number of integrated techniques that
address prevention, early detection and rapid response, control and
management, and restoration and rehabilitation.
The Department of Agriculture also plays a major role in all
aspects of combating invasive species. The Government Accountability
Office noted that in fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the Department of
Agriculture accounted for 89 percent of all invasive species funding by
federal agencies (GAO/RCED-00-219). Agencies within the Departments of
Agriculture and the Interior manage the greatest number of acres (193
million acres and 441 million acres respectively) of all federal land
management agencies. These two departments, along with the Department
of Commerce, co-chair the National Invasive Species Council, which
helps to coordinate and ensure complementary, cost-efficient and
effective Federal activities regarding invasive species.
We recognize the need for a comprehensive view of invasive species
programs, but the development of a crosscut budget should be the
responsibility of the National Invasive Species Council; we cannot
support changing this to the Office of Management and Budget, as
proposed in S. 1541. The Council was created by Executive Order 13112
to coordinate federal invasive species policy and programs and, as
mentioned previously, has already developed crosscut budgets in 2005
and 2006. The Council should retain this responsibility.
In addition, we have concerns about the Congressional expectations
that might arise from the sizeable authorization levels contained in
this legislation which would authorize assessment grants at $25 million
for FY 2006, control grants at $175 million for FY 2006, and rapid
response assistance at $50 million for FY 2006, and ``such sums as are
necessary'' for FYs 2007-2010. We cannot support these authorization
levels, and note that any new funding provided for the program
authorized by this legislation would have to compete with existing
programs and other Administration priorities.
We commend the Subcommittee for recognizing the ecological problems
posed by invasive species. The Subcommittee has recognized that the
invasive species challenge to our Nation is enormous, and land managers
and communities are using available resources to address it. We agree
with the principles embodied in this legislation and will continue to
work with our partners to develop a more effective assessment and
control strategy for responding to animal and plant invasions. Our goal
is to ensure the sustainability of our land and water resources and to
promote the restoration of important wildlife habitat impacted by
invasive species.
In summary, while we concur with the principles embodied in the
legislation, we note that almost all of the actions called for in this
legislation can be achieved within existing authorities. We offer to
work with the Committee to ensure that existing programs and
authorities are effectively targeted to address the Committee's
concerns.
s. 1548--coffman cove
S. 1548 would convey a portion of a 15-acre Forest Service
administrative site situated in the center of a small Alaskan
community, Coffman Cove, to the City of Coffman Cove. The bill directs
the Secretary of Agriculture, without consideration, to convey fee
simple title to twelve acres of the administrative site, to the City.
The Department objects to S. 1548 on the basis of long-standing
policy that the government receives market value for such conveyances.
However, the Department is sympathetic to the needs of the City of
Coffman Cove to control the future development of its future downtown
area.
The Forest Service played a central role in the development of the
community. In the 1960's, Coffman Cove was a logging camp and work
site. Logs were harvested from the surrounding Tongass National Forest.
Eventually, the community developed around the Forest Service
administrative site.
In 1986, the State of Alaska received lands surrounding the Coffman
Cove administrative site as part of its statehood entitlement. Over
time, a decrease in timber sale activity led to a diminished need for
the Forest Service administrative site. Within the last six years, all
buildings have been removed from the site.
Coffman Cove was incorporated in 1989, and is currently home to
about 200 residents. The City is seeking to diversify its economic base
in response to changes in the management of the surrounding Tongass
National Forest and other economic conditions. With the development of
a new ferry terminal adjacent to the Forest Service administrative
site, economic opportunities for the City to develop commercial
operations and tourism support facilities are improving. However, the
location of the Forest Service parcel in the center of town, along the
main street bisecting the town and near the ferry terminal, presents a
significant obstacle to Coffman Cove's efforts to more fully develop
and diversify its economy and design its future downtown. The location
of most of the parcel also makes it difficult and inefficient for the
Forest Service to adequately manage the site.
Should the Subcommittee choose to move the bill in spite of these
concerns, the Department would like to work with the Subcommittee on
amendments that would improve accuracy and management efficiency.
h.r. 482--pine springs land exchange
H.R. 482 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange with
the Lubbock Christian University all right, title and interest in
approximately 80 acres of National Forest System land within the
Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico upon receipt of acceptable title to
approximately 80 acres of non-federal land. The University has operated
a summer camp in the Lincoln National Forest for over 40 years on 40
acres that it owns. The University seeks to exchange 80 acres that it
owns elsewhere in the Forest for 80 acres immediately adjacent to its
existing camp. The bill directs that the exchange be equal in value,
that the appraisal conform to the uniform appraisal standards for
Federal Land Acquisition and that the proponent of the exchange and the
United States share the costs of implementing the exchange equally.
The Forest Service and Lubbock Christian University have discussed
an administrative land exchange since 2001, roughly comprising the
lands described in the bill. While the Department is not opposed to the
exchange, we would like to work with the Subcommittee and the bill's
sponsor on amendments to insure that land management issues related to
floodplains and wetlands are adequately addressed.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Craig. Gloria, thank you. Let me start with the
land exchange. Can you review the history of this proposed land
exchange for the committee? When did the proposal first surface
with Lincoln National Forest? When did the administrative
process break down? Do we know why the proponents of exchange
gave up on the administrative process? And in the absence of a
legislative exchange, how long would it take to complete the
administrative process? Walk me through that, if you can.
Ms. Manning. We were first contacted in 1999, but not with
a formal proposal. I think it was either 2000 or 2001, when we
first got the formal proposal. We had been working, doing the
analysis, but the university thought that it would expedite the
exchange, if they were to go legislatively. There were some
discrepancies in a previous appraisal, in the one we did in
2001, so we had to work through that and that took some time.
But, from what I understand, this is not a controversial
exchange. We haven't done any work yet, but we understand that
one of the trustees of the university had a legislative
exchange before and he thought this would expedite the process.
Senator Craig. Okay. Well, the reason I asked those
questions, it seems like--well, I'm told that about 6 percent
of all the land exchanges accomplished by the Forest Service
are legislated. We have seen a number of bills in the last 2
years where relatively small exchanges are not implemented
quickly enough to accommodate the needs of the proponents of
the exchange.
I would like you to provide the committee with a
legislative drafting service that provides steps we can take to
expedite the Forest Service's administrative land exchange
process. I'm growing increasingly confused, as my colleagues
are, that very small parcels to be exchanged, that seem without
conflict, that make sense on the landscape, just grind
phenomenally slowly through the bureaucratic process. How do we
fix that? And that is the question I am asking, that you might
help us look at your process and say, where can we still meet
all of our needs and not take 2 or 3 years? Because what's
happening is frustration. Oh well, if we can't get them to work
this in 3 or 4 years, then we will get it legislated. I hear
that quite common now. I have people coming to me saying, the
agencies tell us, well, you know what, yes, it's the right
thing to do, but it's a nearly impossible thing to get through
the system, so why don't you go have your congressman legislate
it?
Ms. Manning. Yes, it does take, on the average, about 2.5
years to get an exchange done.
Senator Craig. Well, let's reduce it to 1.5. Show us how
you can do that.
Ms. Manning. We'd like to work with you there, if it were
just the exchange laws, but we have a lot of other laws that we
have to adhere to and we when we do the appraisal, if we find
title discrepancies, we go back and forth. If we change
boundaries, we have to adhere to NEPA, the Endangered Species
Act, FLPMA, all of those laws, and if something happens with
one of them, it sometimes takes us back to the beginning and we
start all over again.
But we are willing to work with the committee to see what
areas that we can expedite, because we, too, would like to
expedite the process.
Senator Craig. Well, let's take a look at it and see if
there is something we might not be able to do, at least, with
sizes of exchanges and all of that. When we are dealing with
relatively small exchanges, that really would have little to no
impact on or an accumulative effect on a broader landscape, we
ought to try to give some convenience there.
Can you tell me what the fiscal year 2005 budget for the
Thorn Bay Ranger District was?
Ms. Manning. I think it was approximately $3 million.
Senator Craig. I see, in your testimony, the normal call
by the administration is to require compensation for land. I
also see that you would like Congress to withhold three acres
for the Forest Service to use as an administrative dite. How
much money is the Thorn Bay Ranger District willing to pay the
city of Coffman Cove for the three acres they would like the
Congress to withdraw, in the event we give the city of Coffman
Cove the entire 15-acre parcel?
Ms. Manning. That's quite a question, sir.
Senator Craig. Let's make a deal.
Ms. Manning. Well, presently, the 15 acres is no longer
being used as an administrative site. We wanted to withhold
three acres, so that we could help with visitor questions and
for public use.
However, if the committee sees fit to give the land to
Coffman Cove, we would not be interested in purchasing three
acres from Coffman Cove.
Senator Craig. Well, I thought I'd put that deal on the
board. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Scott, a couple of questions about the Clark County
heliport conveyance. This bill requires the Department to give
229 acres of BLM land to Clark County, for use as a heliport at
no cost to the county, but the Secretary of the Interior is
required to cover administrative costs of the conveyance.
The Southern Nevada Water Authority's 2003 annual report
shows that it receives $65 million through this Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act in just 1 year. I know the
administration has expressed serious concerns with the windfall
Nevada has gained through the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act.
Here are my questions: How much money has been deposited in
State and local accounts in Nevada, as a result of the Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act and the other similar acts
passed by Congress over the last 10 years? Can you supply that
for the committee?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, I can. What I probably would do is
present that in a detailed fashion for the record, but
ballpark, the total collections have been about $2 billion over
the last 10 years on the sale of BLM lands in that part of
Southern Nevada. The Southern Nevada Water Authority has gotten
about $200 million of that, during the period. The State of
Nevada's General Education Fund has gotten a little bit more
than $108 million during that period of time.
Senator Craig. Okay. Given the revenue generated through
the sale of lands under the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act, can you give us an estimate of the value of the
229 acres listed for conveyance in S. 405?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, I can, at least a preliminary estimate,
Mr. Chairman. We obviously have not done an appraisal, but
ballpark, we are thinking the middle $50 million range. So, $55
million, $56 million, something like that.
Senator Craig. What would you estimate the cost of the
administrative process might be for this conveyance, if
Congress passes this?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, it would be something less than
$1 million. You would probably use $1 million as a likely
ceiling. It could be a lot less than that, depending upon how
much of an easy time we have with the cultural survey, with the
endangered species surveys, that we always have to do. So,
somewhere less that $1 million, maybe as little as a couple
hundred thousand dollars.
Senator Craig. Okay. Isn't there another administrative
process through the Federal Aviation Administration could
convey this land to the county for an airport?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is. There is
authority in Section 302 of the FLPMA for the county to lease
the land. The Federal Aviation Administration also has
authority, as I understand it, to convey the land, although I
don't seem to have my notes on that immediately in front of me.
But yes, there is more than one way. Let me scan through here.
Okay, here we go. Thank you.
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 provides
authority for the conveyance and title to the county, based on
application with the Federal Aviation Administration. There is
no payment of fair market value under those circumstances.
There's a reversionary clause to the United States, in case the
land ends up being used for something else, other than for the
purpose that it was conveyed. There were, apparently, two
conveyances like this nationwide in fiscal year 2001, another
two in 2002, but apparently none in fiscal year 2003. I don't
have the data with regard to fiscal year 2004 or 2005. I'd
suggest that the committee might want to inquire of the Federal
Aviation Administration or Clark County as to why they might
not be availing themselves of this authority.
Senator Craig. Well, that was my next question. Do you
know why the process wasn't pursued for this particular
process, the Federal Aviation Administration was not pursued?
Mr. Cameron. No, we don't. I don't, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Okay. Well, last, can the Department
provide someone to provide us with a briefing--the committee
with a briefing on the status of the Southern Nevada Lands Act,
in the near future? You've given us a guesstimate, but we'd
like a breakdown as to the revenue that has been realized by
the State of the Nevada and its entities as a result of this
particular action.
Mr. Cameron. We've been allotted to do that. We can provide
the numbers very quickly and schedule a discussion, actually,
at your and your staff's convenience.
Senator Craig. We would like that, thank you. We have a
number of Members' statements that will be included in the
record of this hearing, including Senator Cantwell, Senator
Reid, Senator Murkowski and Representatives Neugebauer and
Berkley
[The prepared statements of Senators Cantwell, Reid,
Murkowski, and Representatives Neugebauer and Berkley follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator
From Washington, on S. 1552
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for taking
the time today to hold this hearing on S. 1552. This legislation will
extend an authorization allowing Eastern Washington University (EWU) to
transfer the title of a small parcel of land. EWU hopes to use this
authority to acquire land closer to its rapidly growing campus in
Cheney, WA.
In 1961, EWU acquired a 21-acre parcel of property near Badger
Lake, WA from the federal government under the provisions of the
Recreation and Public Purpose Act. The law and land patent requires EWU
to comply with certain restrictions. First, EWU must use the land for
recreational or educational purposes. Second, ownership of the land
parcel reverts back to the federal government should EWU transfer the
title to the property.
EWU had acquired the land from the Department of Interior with
plans to develop a retreat for its music school. The university made
numerous improvements to the property but revised its plans to install
permanent buildings. In 1976, the University revised its management
plan to reflect recreation as the primary use of the land. However,
unsupervised recreation has been considered unsafe due to the location
of the property several miles from the EWU campus and the physical
features of the site, including steep cliffs at the edge of Badger
Lake.
To address these challenges, Eastern Washington University worked
with Washington's congressional delegation to pass legislation
providing the university needed flexibility to deal with the land.
During the 97th Congress, former House Speaker Tom Foley, worked to
pass legislation that exempted the university from some of the
conditions in the Badger Lake land patent for five years following
enactment in 1983.
Public Law 97-435, directed the Secretary of Interior to release
certain restrictions placed on EWU. The law lifted restrictions that
require the land to revert back to the federal government if used for
purposes other than recreation or education or if EWU transfers the
land title. The law conditions the release from the patent requirements
upon an agreement between EWU and the Secretary committing the
university to dispose the land only for the purpose of acquiring real
property which is more suitable for educational and recreational
purposes.
Further, any property acquired by EWU will vest in the United
States if the university uses the land for purposes other than
recreation or education, attempts to transfer the title to the newly
acquired land, or prohibits or restricts the use of the acquired land
by any person because of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin.
Unfortunately, the university was unable to find a viable buyer
during the five years following enactment of the Foley legislation.
I introduced S. 1552 on July 28, 2005. This legislation would
extend the authority enacted in the Foley legislation until December
31, 2009. Presently, EWU is a growing campus with a rapidly increasing
student population. The university remains interested in transferring
title to the Badger Lake land for the purposes of acquiring property
nearer the campus to meet emerging needs. EWU believes it will be able
to find a viable buyer should the extension of authority contained in
this legislation be enacted.
I am proud that Congresswoman Cathy McMorris has introduced
companion legislation, H.R. 2100, in the House of Representatives
during the 109th Congress. I would note for the Committee that the
House passed identical legislation, H.R. 4596 during the 108th Congress
on September 28, 2004. The Office of Management and Budget reported
that enactment of H.R. 4596 would have had no affect on the federal
budget and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
I look forward to working with the Committee to ensure favorable
consideration of this legislation. Thank you for your attention today.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator From Nevada,
on S. 405
Thank you for your generous support and for allowing a hearing on
this important legislation.
The purpose of this bill is simple: It would convey about a third
of a square mile of public land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management to Clark County for development of a new a heliport. The
land is located just south of the Henderson city limits and east of
Interstate 15. The bill would also impose fees on operators for all
helicopter flights that occur over the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area (NCA), with the proceeds used for the management of
cultural, wildlife, and wilderness resources on public lands in the
State of Nevada. Finally, this bill would restrict helicopter operators
to a detailed flightpath, with appropriate elevations, that will ensure
the protection of the values found in the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area and the sanity of residents who have been subject to
the noise of the helicopters.
Local officials in southern Nevada are committed to establishing a
heliport within the Las Vegas Valley to preserve this quintessential
Las Vegas experience and a strong tourism industry. The county and
local municipalities have previously considered a site, currently in
use as a go-kart track, near Interstate 15 near Henderson. However,
tours originating from this location would fly over the most sensitive
parts of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, with no
restrictions on routing or elevation. Sloan Canyon itself--one of the
richest petroglyph sites in the Mohave Desert--would be subject to
regular overflights. That outcome would be entirely legal, entirely
predictable and entirely regrettable.
In 2002, I worked closely with Senator Ensign, Congresswoman
Berkley, Congressman Gibbons and local advocates to protect the Sloan
Canyon area and its unique cultural resources. Through our combined
efforts, we created the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the
McCullough Mountains Wilderness. I am proud of this accomplishment and
believe this legislation provides protection for the precious resources
that we worked to safeguard in 2002 while resolving the conflict
between air tour operators and Las Vegas residents.
This legislation would not prohibit helicopter overflights of the
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. But it does ensure that such
flights steer clear of the most sensitive and special cultural
resources and minimize the impact on the majestic bighorn sheep and
other wildlife that live in the McCullough Mountains.
Importantly, my legislation also requires that every such flight
contribute $3 per passenger to a special fund dedicated to the
protection of the cultural, wilderness, and wildlife resources in
Nevada. These provisions justify conveying the land to Clark County at
no cost because they provide a stable, long-term source of funding in
excess of the market value of the land and because the conveyance and
use are in the public interest.
I am hopeful that my distinguished colleagues will work with me to
pass this important legislation during the current session.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska,
on S. 1548
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. One of the five bills that we will
hear today is S. 1548 which authorizes the Forest Service to convey a
12 acre administrative site that it no longer needs to the City of
Coffman Cove on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska.
The City of Coffman Cove is completely surrounded by the Tongass
National Forest. It was born as a logging camp. However, with the
downturn in logging on Prince of Wales Island, the community of 230
people is looking for opportunities to diversify its economy. The 12
acres that the Forest Service no longer needs is one of the few
remaining pieces of property available in Coffman Cove and the property
is located in the center of downtown.
I understand that the Forest Service would prefer to sell the
property rather than gift it to the City, but the plain truth is that
the City doesn't have the money to buy it. The City's annual budget is
on the order of $380,000--$240,000 of that comes from grants which are
dedicated to specific purposes.
So if we don't pass this legislation, the Forest Service gets to
keep a piece of property it neither needs nor wants and the City of
Coffman Cove continues to suffer from having an unproductive piece of
land right in the center of downtown. Surely, we can do better for this
small community, which doesn't even have a grocery store.
I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of the Mayor of the City
of Coffman Cove be included in the record and I look forward to hearing
the testimony of the witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Randy Neugebauer, U.S. Representative
From Texas, on H.R. 482
Chairman Craig and Ranking Member Wyden, thank you for including
H.R. 482 on the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee's hearing
schedule today. I also want to thank the chairman of the full
committee, Senator Domenici, for meeting with me to discuss this land
exchange that takes place in his home state.
H.R. 482 provides for a small land exchange between the Lincoln
National Forest in New Mexico and Lubbock Christian University, located
in my Congressional district in Texas. The legislation is cosponsored
by Congressman Steve Pearce from New Mexico, and the House of
Representatives passed H.R. 482 on April 12, 2005 by voice vote. I ask
that the Senate also pass the legislation this year.
Lubbock Christian University (LCU) owns and operates Pine Springs
Camp, which is located on 40 acres within the Lincoln National Forest.
LCU also owns an undeveloped 80-acre tract in the Lincoln National
Forest a few miles northwest of the camp. This tract is fully
surrounded by National Forest land and has limited access.
LCU would like to expand Pine Springs Camp in order to accommodate
the growth in the number of campers. In the past ten years, summer
campers have increased from 650 to more than 1,250 youth. In order to
expand the camp, the university proposes to exchange its undeveloped
80-acre tract for up to 80 acres of National Forest land that border
the existing camp, consisting of two 20-acre tracts and one 40-acre
tract. Pine Springs Camp would use the land for new athletic fields
and, in the future, for an amphitheater and new camp housing.
LCU is a non-profit entity. Pine Springs Camp was deeded to the
University in 1996, and has become an important part of LCU. Pine
Springs Camp is used in the summer for ten one-week camp sessions
staffed by LCU students and church volunteers and in the winter by
college groups, youth groups and churches for retreats. Pine Springs
Camp operates as a non-profit; camp fees cover operating costs, and
camp improvements are made by volunteers and through donations.
While LCU has initiated an administrative land exchange with the
Forest Service, LCU, as a non-profit, is concerned with the uncertainty
in costs and time involved in an administrative exchange. My LCU
constituents asked me to introduce H.R. 482 because this legislation
helps streamline the land exchange process, while still including a
full land appraisal and review, and sets a time limit for its
completion.
H.R. 482 allows for a small and straightforward federal land
exchange and provides significant benefits to both parties. A lengthy
and expensive exchange, however, would not provide the same benefits to
either LCU or the Forest Service.
Without the exchange, LCU may need to sell its inholding to another
landowner or develop it into a replacement camp, an expensive option.
By expanding Pine Springs Camp in its existing location through
acquisition of the federal land, LCU will have space to allow for
future growth. By acquiring LCU's 80-acre inholding, the Lincoln
National Forest will increase and consolidate the Forest Service's
undeveloped land within the forest.
Chairman Craig and Ranking Member Wyden, on behalf of my
constituents at LCU and Pine Springs Camp, I ask that your Subcommittee
and the full Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee support this
legislation and report it favorably for the full Senate's
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Shelley Berkley, U.S. Representative
From Nevada, on S. 405
Mr. Chairman: I am pleased today to join the other members of the
Nevada congressional delegation in supporting S. 405, legislation that
would transfer land from the Bureau of Land Management to Clark County
for use as a heliport. I appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee in
considering this important legislation.
Tourism is the engine that drives the Las Vegas economy, and
companies offering helicopter tours of the Grand Canyon are an
important part of the Las Vegas experience. Unfortunately, the
explosive growth in our area has made the operation of these air tour
companies at Las Vegas' McCarran International Airport increasingly
difficult for both the businesses themselves and for area residents who
are impacted by the noise. Moving the heliport to a new, more remote
location and establishing flight patterns to protect Sloan Canyon's
wonders are both important compromises needed to reduce noise pollution
and to ensure that our air tour operators can continue doing business
for years to come.
I am an original cosponsor of companion legislation approved by the
House in May, and I urge the subcommittee to support this important
measure. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, both of you, for your
time and your preparedness.And again, Scott, we would like this
information in a reasonable time, as it relates to revenues,
for the committee to be briefed.
Mr. Cameron. We'll try to get the statistics for you by the
end of the week and get the meeting scheduled shortly
thereafter.
Senator Craig. Very good. Thank you much. The committee
will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon at 4:10 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record:]
Statement of Randall H. Walker, Director of Aviation, Clark County,
Nevada, on S. 405
My name is Randall H. Walker and as the Director of Aviation for
Clark County, Nevada I appreciate the opportunity to submit written
testimony before the subcommittee on S. 405. The Department of Aviation
(CCDOA) owns and operates Las Vegas--McCarran International Airport.
McCarran Airport, fulfilling its critical role as a gateway for nearly
50% of all visitors to Las Vegas, handled in excess of forty (40)
million passengers in 2004. In addition, CCDOA operates a system of
five general aviation (GA) airports providing much needed capacity
relief to McCarran.
I urge support for S. 405 which is urgently needed to address a
pressing aviation issue, namely helicopter noise over residential areas
within Las Vegas. Because of our tourism based economy, Las Vegas has
become the primary jumping-off point for visits to the Grand Canyon
National Park. A portion of those visits occur as helicopter air tours
originating from McCarran airport.
An expanding segment of the Las Vegas tourist experience is the
Grand Canyon helicopter air tour operations which have increased by
approximately 50% over the past three years and now exceed almost 65
thousand operations per year. Given the number of new hotel rooms under
construction, CCDOA can only surmise that this growth will continue
into the foreseeable future. Below is a chart which shows the growth in
helicopter operations from Las Vegas which traverses Tropicana and
Charleston Boulevards, heavily populated areas of the valley.
AVERAGE DAILY CORRIDOR USE--OCTOBER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corridor 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tropicana....................................................... 58 60 66 89 91 107
Charleston...................................................... 58 66 63 83 89 105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The helicopter air tour departure and return corridors direct the
helicopters over older, established neighborhoods. Some 90,000+
residents have lived in these homes for a number of years with no
expectation of what they are now subjected to.
The noise is exaggerated because the helicopters must remain at a
low altitude (as low as 800 feet above ground level) and within the
prescribed corridors to avoid traffic conflicts with fixed-wing
aircraft flights operating at Nellis Air Force Base, the North Las
Vegas Airport and McCarran Airport.
Under Federal law enacted in the early 1990's designed to prevent
communities from imposing airline noise controls at local airports,
CCDOA as the operator of a federally funded airport cannot prevent the
helicopters from using McCarran Airport or in any way take an action
that could be deemed to discriminate against the tour operators.
Rather, CCDOA must develop an alternative heliport the operators will
voluntarily choose to move to because they deem it to be in their best
financial interest.
The county's acquisition of a parcel of vacant, federally owned
land called for in this bill is the best answer we have to this
problem. CCDOA's intent is to construct on the site a facility to which
the air tour operators will willingly relocate. This bill provides for
the transfer of the 229 acres of BLM land for this purpose. This
acreage should be adequate to support existing and future air tour
activities plus all associated support and infrastructure facilities.
The site is approximately 12 miles south of the Las Vegas ``Strip''
with surface access provided by Interstate Highway 15 and State Route
604 (Las Vegas Boulevard South). We have reviewed many other possible
sites including the land fill on the eastern rim of the valley and
another site at Railroad Pass. For a variety of reasons the site
identified in this bill is superior.
The legislative proposal attaches a number of conditions to the
land's transfer. These include:
the parcel is to be used only as a heliport;
the parcel is not to be disposed of by Clark County;
Clark County shall pay all administrative costs associated
with the land's conveyance from the Department of the Interior;
the parcel shall revert to federal ownership if the county
ceases to use it as a heliport in accordance with the
legislative intent;
operators at the non-urban heliport will pay a fee for each
passenger transported over the Sloan Canyon National
Conservation Area;
such fees as may be collected will be made available for
protection of natural and cultural resources within the
conservation area and the North McCullough Mountains Wilderness
Area;
tours originating from the non-urban heliport shall cross
the conservation area only within a defined, narrow, corridor
(Exhibit 2--Clark County Public Heliport Facility).
The CCDOA is comfortable with each of these conditions, several of
which reflect concerns raised by Federal land managers, Native American
and environmental interests. CCDOA is committed to the identification,
evaluation and, to the extent possible, the mitigation of legitimate
environmental impacts which might be attributed to the development and
operation of the non-urban heliport through a thorough NEPA review. In
doing such a NEPA analysis, the county must and will consider those
impacts associated with each alternative site, as well as the continued
operation of helicopter air tours from McCarran International Airport.
The undeveloped mountainous areas south of Las Vegas, including the
Sloan Canyon Conservation Area and the North McCullough Mountains
Wilderness Area, already experience numerous aircraft overflights. Low
altitude McCarran, Henderson Executive and Boulder City aircraft
operations commonly occur over these areas. This reality was
acknowledged in the legislative language that established the
conservation and wilderness areas just three years ago in 2002. The
addition of the helicopter tour operations is not expected to raise
related noise to federally established levels of significance. The NEPA
document, which CCDOA is currently drafting together with the FAA and
BLM, will fully consider noise and overflight impacts on sensitive
populations in the manner prescribed by federal regulations.
CCDOA owns the ``Go Kart/Sloan'' site, and has found it to be a
suitable and economically viable location for the non-urban heliport.
This site, located about 3 miles immediately north of the parcel
detailed in the Senator's bill, was initially preferred for the non-
urban heliport. Subsequently, the community asked that the ``South of
Sloan'' site (which has been identified in the legislation) be added to
the environmental evaluation process. Quite frankly, the CCDOA's
concern was and is that ``South of Sloan'' will not be available
because it is federally owned and outside the BLM's disposal area
boundary.
If ``South of Sloan'' cannot be conveyed in a timely manner, if
unreasonable restrictions are placed on its development, and/or if the
unmitigatable environmental impacts associated with ``South of Sloan''
are greater than ``Go Kart/Sloan'' the CCDOA intends to proceed with
development at ``Go Kart/Sloan''.
Let all understand that the construction of the non-urban heliport
within the next three to four years is needed to preclude the shifting
of the helicopter air tour operations from McCarran Airport to the
Henderson Executive Airport. This simple relocation of the helicopter
tour operations to another urban airport would create new flight
corridors over existing neighborhoods and thus only serve to shift
noise concerns from one community to another. Clark County elected
officials have long held that it is undesirable to take an action that
simply shifts a burden from one set of neighbors to another.
In conclusion, CCDOA, with support and cooperation from the
Congress, the FAA and the BLM, has embarked on the development of a new
non-urban heliport. The county's intent is to balance the needs and
interests of the air tour operators, our valley's residents and the
environmental community. There is no simple or perfect answer to the
helicopter air tour issue faced by CCDOA. Nevertheless, my agency and
staff has not backed away, but has attempted to forge ahead and barter
a workable, reasonable solution. What we ask Congress for is an ability
to obtain the 229 acres of land at the designated ``South of Sloan''
site if, at the end of the environmental review process, that site is
deemed the most acceptable alternative.
Thank you.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Scott J. Cameron
Question 1. Is there any language in S. 1541 that would preclude a
private landowner, or the federal government, from using non-native
species on their lands? Can you please comment specifically with
respect to the definition of ``invasive species?''
Answer. No. The bill language would not preclude a private
landowner or the federal government from using a non-native species on
their lands. Programs funded under S. 1541 address the relatively
narrow class of ``invasive'' species, not the broader group of non-
native species. In order to be covered by the provisions of the
legislation, a species must be not only non-native to a particular
ecosystem, but also the introduction of that species must cause or be
likely to cause economic harm or harm to human health or the
environment. Additionally, with regard to private lands, activities
authorized under the legislation may only be carried out with the
consent of the private landowner.
Question 2. The Weed Bill authorizes activities on Forest Service
and BLM lands. How specifically does DOI address weeds not on Forest
Service and BLM lands or lands adjacent to those lands?
Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages lands in
the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), and the National Park
Service, which manages national parklands and historic sites, have
extensive programs for managing invasive species.
In the refuge system, control and eradication of invasive species
is an important part of refuge management and, in many cases, part of
day-to-day operations. In addition, the NWRS invasive species team
developed a National Strategy for Management of Invasive Species to
guide invasive species management in the refuge system. This strategy
emphasizes assessment information, monitoring recommendations, and best
management practices, and operations on refuge lands include preventive
activities, early detection and rapid response, control and
eradication, research and monitoring, cooperative partnerships and cost
share projects and public education about invasive species. Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) techniques used in the field include the
application of chemicals, mechanical and hand removal, use of
prescribed fires, cultural techniques, and biological control.
Prevention efforts are significant in preventing newly discovered
infestations from gaining a foothold in refuges. FWS has authorities it
uses to partner with private landowners, and these can be used in
tandem with invasives work on private lands adjacent to NWRS lands.
The NPS uses various approaches to control invasive populations in
national parks and protect sensitive populations from destruction by
invasive species, including integrated pest management techniques.
However, the NPS has no statutory authority to partner with adjacent
landowners to address invasive species issues of mutual concern outside
of parks. The Administration requested such authority in a proposal
transmitted to Congress in August 2005.
As part of the National Park Service's Natural Resource Challenge,
a new management strategy was created for addressing invasive species
in national parks. Modeled after the approach used in wildland fire
fighting, field-based Exotic Plant Management Teams (EPMTs) provide
highly trained, mobile strike forces of plant management specialists
who assist parks in the identification, treatment, control,
restoration, and monitoring of areas infested with invasive plants.
There are now 16 teams covering 209 parks nationwide. This successful
model has also been adopted by the FWS. The success of the EPMTs
derives from accountability and its ability to adapt to local
conditions and needs while still serving multiple units within a broad
geographic area. Moreover, the NPS's Inventory and Monitoring (I&M)
Program networks are helping parks develop monitoring programs for the
detection of new invasions so a quick response can ultimately remove
the threat before it becomes unmanageable. The information is also used
by EMPTs for identifying treatment areas and coordinating control
projects with parks.
Departmental bureaus also partner with other federal and non-
federal entities on research projects. The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey,
and Bureau of Reclamation partner with the Agriculture Research
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and university scientists to develop
and test biological control agents and conduct studies of stream flow
management for vegetation control and of hybridization to better
predict the potential future spread of invasive species. The USGS also
has partnerships with state and county weed departments, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others aimed at mapping
currently invaded sites and identifying new invasions of weeds like
tamarisk (also known as saltcedar).
Finally, the BOR leads, along with USDA's Agricultural Research
Service, the Saltcedar Biological Control Consortium, a task force
comprised of over 40 agencies, and BOR, in collaboration with Los
Alamos National Laboratory, that also develops new technologies for
determining the amount of water lost from the Rio Grande River due to
tamarisk and for assessing restoration potential based upon soil
salinity and chemical composition.
Question 3. How does DOI address weeds not on the Federal Noxious
Weeds list?
Answer. We recognize that weeds can be harmful even if they are not
formally listed as noxious. Bureau land managers partner with the U.S.
Geological Survey and other research organizations to identify the
invasive plants that cause the greatest damage to resources under the
Department's jurisdiction--such as migratory birds or endangered
species. Specific treatment plans are then developed utilizing
currently approved integrated pest management and resource management
protocols. Depending on the priority, treatments are targeted at the
specific point in the life cycle when maximum control can be achieved
while, at the same time, minimizing the harm to other resources.
Question 4. If a species is non-native, is it necessarily an
invasive species?
Answer. No, relatively few non-native species are ``invasive
species.'' According to Executive Order 13112, which guides federal
policy on these issues, an invasive species is defined as an alien
species--a species that is not native to a particular ecosystem--whose
introduction does or is likely to cause economic or harm to human
health or the environment. Many non-native species provide valuable
food and fiber, recreational, and hobby interest for Americans without
fear of economic harm or harm to human health or the environment. For
example, any species under cultivation as a crop or managed as
livestock are not commonly considered invasive species because their
presence is economically advantageous and impacts on the environment
are under effective control.