[Senate Hearing 112-226]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-226
PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 1024
S. 1090
S. 1144
S. 1149
S. 1344
__________
AUGUST 3, 2011
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
72-433 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
MARK UDALL, Colorado RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware DEAN HELLER, Nevada
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Abbey, Robert, Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior................................................... 10
Flynn, Edward, President, FMC Wyoming, and Chairman, Board of the
American Natural Soda Ash Corporation.......................... 29
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Arizona......................... 5
Nichols, Scott, U.S. Geothermal, Inc............................. 33
Tidwell, Thomas, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture 17
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 41
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 47
PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. The subcommittee will come to order.
This afternoon the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
will receive testimony on five bills addressing issues under
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and the
Forest Service. The bills on today's agenda include S. 1024,
designating the Organ Mountains and other public lands in New
Mexico as wilderness; S. 1090, designating certain lands in the
Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee as wilderness; S. 1144,
to amend the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006 to extend
the reduced royalty rate for soda ash; S. 1149, to expand
geothermal production; and S. 1344, to direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to take immediate action to recover ecologically
and economically from a catastrophic wildfire in Arizona.
The bills on today's agenda cover a variety of issues and
involve different states across the Nation. However, they share
a common trait, in that each of these bills is extremely
important to the states that are covered by the legislation.
I know the two wilderness bills, for example, are the
result of many years of work by the Senate sponsors and folks
in the local communities.
When this hearing was first announced, the Senate was
scheduled to be in session today. However, since the Senate is
now adjourned, several of my colleagues have left Washington to
return home, so this hearing will perhaps be a little bit more
abbreviated than most. We intend to include all of the written
statements in the record.
I'm pleased that we're joined today by heads of the two
agencies involved with the legislation. I'd like to welcome BLM
Director Bob Abbey, and Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell, who
will give the Obama administration's views on all of the bills.
The subcommittee has also invited Edward T. Flynn to
testify on S. 1140, the Soda Ash Competition Act. Mr. Flynn is
the President of FMC Wyoming Corporation, a subsidiary of FMC
Corporation. Mr. Flynn is also the General Manager of Alkali
Chemicals Divisions for FMC Corporation and has held this
position since 2002. He's currently Chairman and a Board member
of the Board of Directors for the American National Soda Ash
Corporation, and is also Secretary-Treasurer and a member of
the Board of Directors for the Industrial Minerals Association
of North America.
The subcommittee has also invited Mr. Scott Nichols to
testify on S. 1149, the Geothermal Production Expansion Act of
2011. Mr. Nichols is Manager for Lands and Permitting at a
major geothermal energy company, U.S. Geothermal, located in
Boise, Idaho. Before coming to U.S. Geothermal, he was the
Environmental Service Manager for Brown and Caldwell, an
environmental services firm in Boise, and served for 12 years
before that with the Idaho Department of Lands.
I'd just like to take a minute to discuss two of the
bills--the Soda Ash bill and the Geothermal bill--that are
especially important in my part of the country. Both of these
bills have bipartisan support. Senator Risch and Senator Crapo
are co-support--cosponsors of the Geothermal bill, along with
my colleague from Oregon, Senator Merkley. Senator Barrasso,
Senator Enzi and Senator Cochran are cosponsors of the Soda Ash
bill, along, again, with Senator Merkley.
Both of these bills are aimed at the development of
resources on public lands. My goal for both of these bills is
to strike the proper balance between developing public
resources to provide clean energy and jobs, while ensuring that
the interests of our taxpayers are protected.
The Geothermal bill would expand existing authority that
the Secretary of the Interior has under the Geothermal Steam
Act to issue non-competitive leases for geothermal development.
The reason for this is to allow a geothermal project which is
already under lease to expand the boundaries of its project so
that it can fully develop the geothermal energy resource that
it has discovered. This will increase the amount of renewable
energy that can be produced from the project and the amount of
royalties that would be paid to the Treasury.
The bill includes specific provisions to ensure that our
government receives fair-market value for these adjacent leases
and receiving annual rental payments equal to those that would
be paid for competitive leases.
The legislation also has the support of the Geothermal
Energy Association, and I ask unanimous consent that a letter*
from the Association be made part of the record.
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Soda Ash Bill would continue a policy put in place by
this committee and the Congress in 2006 to provide a reduced
Federal royalty for soda ash that's produced on public lands.
The reason for the policy, then, and the reason for continuing
it now, is that the soda ash market is an international market,
and some of our international competitors are trying to game
this market.
At the time Congress acted in 2006, China had adopted a
policy of providing a rebate on its value-added tax to Chinese
exporters of its synthetic substitute for soda ash. Although
China abandoned this practice in 2007, it resumed the rebates
in April 2009 and has continued them to this day. Without
objection, two bipartisan letters* sent by members of the House
and Senate in 2009 and 2011, including myself and Senator
Barrasso, who serves on this committee, to the U.S. Trade
Representative and the Secretary of Commerce calling on them to
raise this trade abuse with the Chinese government, will be
made a part of the record.
The legislation is also supported by the Glass Packaging
Institute, and, without objection, a letter* from the Institute
in support of the bill will also be made part of the record.
The current royalty rate authorization expires in October.
It was my hope that the Congress would have the benefit of an
economic analysis of the benefits of keeping American soda ash
production competitive. It's my understanding that the Interior
Department is still working on this report, which was required
by the original 2006 legislation for this purpose.
I look forward to the Department's testimony on this
legislation, but the time is short for taking action to make
sure that hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. soda ash
exports, and the jobs they provide, don't fall victim to unfair
foreign trade practices because our Government wasn't able to
act.
Finally, I want to raise one last concern of great
importance for my State, and it involves Director Abbey, who
will be here today. I have learned of some extremely serious
errors that were committed by the Bureau of Land Management in
estimating the 2011 county payment for the ONC Counties. An
incorrect level of funding was used to calculate these payments
originally, and as a result, counties in my home State will be
receiving some $11.6 million less in 2011 than they had planned
on under prior estimates by the Bureau of Land Management.
To make matters worse, when the Bureau of Land Management
recognized this error in March of this year, they failed to
notify the congressional delegation or the counties about this
mistake. In fact, my office has yet to receive the corrected
data, or a response to a letter that I have sent to the agency,
to Mr. Abbey, on this matter. So, we will have some questions
on this matter after Director Abbey is here.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator From Arizona,
on S. 1344
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to join my colleague, Senator Jon Kyl, as
a cosponsor to S. 1344, legislation that provides for the timely
removal of post-wildfire dead and drying trees in northern Arizona.
This bill is extraordinarily important to my state in terms of job
creation, public safety and wildfire prevention.
As you know, Arizona experienced its largest wildfire in state
history this summer with the 538,000-acre Wallow Fire. Left standing
are many millions of large ponderosa pine trees that no longer resemble
their picturesque appearance nor serve their former ecological purpose
but instead pose a safety hazard to roads, private property and utility
lines. These trees must be removed quickly lest we encourage the
considerable risks of falling trees, potential insect infestations, or
reburns.
I commend the Forest Service for responding to the Wallow Fire burn
area with plans to conduct some tree removal under their existing
categorical exclusion authority. Unfortunately, the reality is the
Wallow Fire area is so vast that many of these dead trees will remain a
public danger without a tailored policy for conducting meaningful tree
removal operations. This legislation establishes a procedure for
removing these dead trees in partnership with forest contractors that
is both mindful of environment priorities and economic conditions. The
bill would also require that a portion of the tree removal receipts be
returned to offset the costs of future thinning projects. Not only is
this bill desperately needed for the safety of communities in northern
Arizona, it is estimated the tree removal projects that would result
from this legislation could create hundreds of local jobs. This bill
represents a sensible approach to federal land management policy that
I'm proud to support.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation can help address a federal problem
in ways that will benefit both local communities and the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forest. However, time is of the essence because
every day that passes means a growing mass of dying trees will only
compound the devastation caused by one of the worst natural disasters
in Arizona history.
I urge the Committee to quickly pass this legislation.
Senator Wyden. I'm very pleased that Senator Risch, my
friend and colleague from Idaho is here, and also Senator Kyl,
who we will greet momentarily. But, let's hear from Senator
Risch as this time.
Senator Risch. Mr. Chairman, I'd like a statement from
Senator Barrasso regarding this hearing be placed in the
record, please.
Senator Wyden. Without objection. So ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Barrasso, U.S. Senator From Wyoming
I want to thank the Chairman for scheduling this hearing today.
Let me begin by welcoming Edward Flynn. Mr. Flynn is President of
FMC Wyoming Corporation. FMC is the largest soda ash producer in
Wyoming.
FMC recently announced it was reopening its Granger soda ash
production facility in Wyoming. This means increased production and
more American jobs.
The soda ash industry supports thousands of jobs in Wyoming. With
unemployment at 9.2 percent, promoting job growth is a top priority. We
can create jobs by reducing Washington red-tape, simplifying the tax
code, and keeping royalty rates low. These steps will help American
companies compete.
I want to thank Senator Wyden for his leadership on this issue. I
am an original cosponsor of Senator Wyden's Soda Ash Competition Act.
The bill extends the existing royalty rate on soda ash. The current
royalty rate has helped American soda ash producers compete with China.
Keeping the current royalty rate is important for job growth and export
growth.
The President has announced a goal of doubling U.S. exports. Soda
ash production can help achieve that goal. The Soda Ash Competition Act
provides a straightforward solution for increasing American exports.
The current royalty rate was set by a 2006 law championed by my
predecessor, Senator Craig Thomas. The law also requires the Interior
Department to analyze the impact of the reduced royalty rate. The
report is due in October 2011.
Senator Wyden and I--along with three other Senators--sent a letter
in May 2010 requesting the Department expedite the study. The report is
still not complete.
It is important for Congress to have an opportunity to review this
study before the royalties are changed. The Department should delay any
increase in royalties until Congress can evaluate the impact on jobs.
I am also interested in several of the other bills included in this
hearing. I see two wilderness bills that interest me because one
reflects the exact recommendations from the current forest plan and one
does not.
S. 1090--Senator Lamar Alexander's bill designates certain public
land in the Cherokee National Forest as Wilderness. S. 1024--Senator
Bingaman's bill to designate the Organ Mountains and other public land
as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the
National Landscape Conservation System.
Senator Alexander's bill adheres to the recommendations from the
current forest plan for the Cherokee National Forest. While Senator
Bingaman's bill goes beyond what was recommended in the land management
plan produced by the Bureau of land Management.
I have one other concern that needs explanation before I will be
comfortable supporting this bill at a business meeting. That is the
relative distance between the proposed Wilderness boundary and the
Mexican border.
Several bills are recommending the elimination of Wilderness and
other set-asides that might encumber Border Patrol activities within
100 miles of the border. I want to make sure people who have been
border patrol agents and are border patrol agents give us their best
advice before I will be comfortable with the boundaries proposed in
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for scheduling this hearing.
Senator Risch. I yield back my time, and let's proceed.
Senator Wyden. All right.
Very pleased to see Senator Kyl.
Senator Kyl and I have worked together often on forestry
issues. We've served together on the Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Kyl, we welcome you. Please make whatever remarks
you wish this afternoon, and we'll make the prepared remarks a
part of the record in their entirety.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and Senator Risch.
Folks should know that there are still some hardworking
Senators here in Washington even though the Senate is no longer
in session. As you point out, some of the matters before you
are truly emergency matters in time.
Such is the case with respect to the legislation that
Senator McCain and I have introduced--S. 1344, the Arizona
Wallow Fire Recovery and Monitoring Act.
When I was last before the committee, the fire was still
raging in eastern Arizona. It had just blown through the small
community in which I have a cabin, destroying about two-thirds
of the cabins on the road, just barely missing mine and my two
neighbors'. We went up over 4th of July, put up sandbags all
over the community for people that couldn't help themselves
and, of course, around our own cabins. Because, with the
mountain right behind us totally denuded of any vegetation now,
the ash and mud, with the summer rains, are beginning to come
down the mountain and threaten the communities. Recovery is a
huge and immediate problem right now.
Fortunately, the Forest Service and their BAER Teams, have
jumped to the effort, spreading a lot of seed and straw, and
doing whatever else they can do. I'm sure Chief Tidwell will
have more to say about that in a moment. But, money is short.
The fire cost over $100 million to fight, and the estimates
are that the recovery can be twice that much. Our bill
addresses that, and it addresses two aspects of this huge fire.
This fire, incidentally, in terms of the size, was over
538,000 acres, which is over 841 square miles. I think that's
about as big as the State of Rhode Island. Because of the size
of this fire, the tools that the Forest Service would usually
employ, for example, to remove dead and dying trees that pose a
threat to people and to communities, to deal with the removal
of trees and watersheds and so on; and sometimes, even in a
broader area, try to salvage whatever timber is salvageable.
Those tools are simply inadequate to the task. They've never, I
think, had a fire this size for salvaging over 200,000 acres,
and the need to restore that area, with zero funds in the
budget.
So, our bill addresses this in two ways, without taking
away any of the existing authorities that the Forest Service
has and is already beginning to employ. For example, trying to
remove as many of the trees along roadways as possible under
the categorical exclusions permitted by existing law.
In addition to that, this legislation would provide some
additional authorities for the Forest Service to move forward
with the kind of environmental review that would be appropriate
under these circumstances. It requires a comprehensive hazard
tree and commercial timber evaluation, which the Forest
Service, and my conversation with Chief Tidwell yesterday, is
already commencing to prepare. It simplifies the National
Environmental Policy Act compliance by limiting the
alternatives to be analyzed, and specifying that an
environmental assessment must be completed; and then,
monitoring of removal projects implemented under the bill would
be required, and all appeals and judicial review would follow
processes in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, which was, as
you know, Mr. Chairman, and act that you had a lot to do with
on a bipartisan basis to get established.
So, it would provide that we can move forward fairly
quickly. That's necessary because, as you know, in 18 months or
so, the value of any, of this timber is, goes down
dramatically. After a couple years it doesn't have commercial
lumber value any longer. So, speed, time is of the essence.
The other thing it does is to provide that if there is any
income from this salvaged timber, that it can be plowed right
back into the Forest Service for restoration on this forest.
That's critical, because of the huge number of acres that will
need to be treated here. There just isn't the money in the
Forest Service budget. But to the extent that we can make some
money from the forest, from the timber that will be salvaged
off of this forest, it would provide a source of funds that
would not have to otherwise come out of the Forest Service
budget for restoration.
Mr. Chairman, I've got several letters here and resolutions
from political jurisdictions in the area that I would ask be
made a part of the record.
Also, I think, if, I think Chief Tidwell will put in the
record a great report the Forest Service prepared entitled,
``How Fuel Treatment Saved Homes from the 2011 Wallow Fire.''*
It's just another exhibit, in case anybody needed it, that
fuels treatment before the fire occurs is a huge benefit in not
only saving property, but helping the forest fire fighters do
their job. So, that's for the further work of this committee.
But, I would ask unanimous consent that both of those items be
inserted in the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Report has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Wyden. Without objection, Senator Kyl.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kyl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator From Arizona, on S.
1344
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the
opportunity to testify on S. 1344, the Arizona Wallow Fire Recovery and
Monitoring Act. I introduced this bill on July 11 with Senator McCain
in response to the Wallow Fire, a catastrophic mega-fire that burned
more than half a million acres, supplanting the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski
Fire--which burned 468,000 acres just 40 miles to the west of this
fire--as the largest wildfire in Arizona history. Together these 2
fires blackened nearly a million acres in the picturesque White
Mountains in Eastern Arizona, a top destination for outdoor recreation
in the West and a favorite of valley residents seeking a break from the
summer heat.
For nearly 40 days, the Wallow Fire burned. Television crews and
media reporters flashed images on the evening news of heroic
firefighters and the first-ever DC 10 dropping slurry to battle a blaze
in the Southwest. The fire was front and center in what will likely go
down as one of the worst fire seasons in our nation's history. The fire
destroyed 32 homes and four rental cabins. Nearly 10,000 people were
evacuated at one point. The suppression effort for this fire alone cost
American taxpayers more than $100 million. Although the fire may now be
extinguished and the media frenzy may be over, for these communities
and the landscapes they hold dear, the story isn't over.
Now we must turn our attention to recovery. Recovery from a
megafire of this scope and magnitude is daunting. We have only a narrow
window of opportunity to hasten forest rehabilitation; reduce the risks
of flooding, insect epidemics and future fires; and capture some
economic benefit from the hazard, dead, and dying trees. Of course,
there is also much forest restoration and fuel reduction work that must
continue on the front end to preserve the forests we have left. If we
have learned anything from the Wallow Fire, it's that treatments work;
I saw the successes first-hand while touring the affected communities
of Alpine, Nutrioso, Greer, and Eager. But you don't have to take my
word for it, just take a look at the fuel treatment effectiveness
assessment titled, How Fuel Treatments Saved Homes from the 2011 Wallow
Fire, prepared by the Forest Service. If this doesn't convince you,
nothing will.
Due to the intensity, size, and magnitude of the Wallow Fire, there
are a tremendous amount of hazard, dead, and dying trees within the
burned area near communities. Conservative estimates from the Forest
Service indicate that more than 700 million board feet of mixed conifer
and 679 million board feet of Ponderosa Pine may be recoverable across
200,000 acres within the Wallow Fire area. These estimates do not even
include wilderness, roadless areas, steep slopes and areas with
threatened and endangered species. That is a significant acreage of
hazard, dead, and dying trees! Every day that we wait, these trees will
lose economic value. In fact, within just 2 short years, the scientific
literature indicates that nearly 40 percent of a dead tree's value is
lost. Under these post-fire conditions, we need to expeditiously move
and use timber removal as a recovery tool to generate revenue and jobs
and put the forest on a healthy trajectory for the future.
This legislation would focus on expediting the removal of hazard,
dead, and dying trees in community protection management areas within
the Wallow Fire area. The removal projects prescribed under this act
would be completed within 18 months of enactment.
We saw the negative consequences of delay in the aftermath of
Arizona's Rodeo-Chediski Fire. Bureaucratic regulations, onerous
environmental requirements, and lawsuits so severely delayed salvage
efforts that these trees had lost most of their economic value by the
time projects were cleared to proceed. I do not want to see that
mistake repeated again.
That said, we are not looking to eliminate environmental safeguards
or exempt timber harvest from federal environmental laws. The bill
instead requires a comprehensive hazard tree and commercial timber
evaluation and simplifies the National Environmental Policy Act
compliance by limiting the alternatives to be analyzed and specifying
that an environmental assessment be completed. Monitoring of timber
removal projects implemented under the bill would be required. All
appeals and judicial review would follow the processes in the
bipartisan Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
I understand that the Forest Service is currently doing some timber
removal projects of hazardous, dead and dying trees using existing
administrative authorities. This is a good thing. I expect the Forest
Service to continue doing as much as possible--as quickly as possible--
under existing authorities. It is not the intent of this legislation to
limit the ability of the Forest Service to use its existing tools.
Rather, the legislation is intended to add a tool to the toolbox. Given
the scale and the time frame of the timber removal work that must be
done in the Wallow Fire area, it is not possible to treat the entire
area by just using existing authorities to accomplish it. Moreover,
there is no existing timber sale authority that gives the Forest
Service the authority to retain 100 percent of the timber sale receipts
or pump those receipts back into forest restoration. This is important
because we all know that there is far more work that needs to be
accomplished within the fire area than there are federal dollars. The
only way to accomplish this ``win-win'' is through this legislation.
This bill strikes a responsible balance between environmental
concerns and economics after a catastrophic wildfire, and enjoys
widespread support in my state. I urge the committee to support the
legislation.
Senator Wyden. I thank you for your excellent testimony.
You know I very much share your view with respect to the
treatment of these fuels. I mean, the West, and particularly
the rural West, has a choice--we can either get there in a
preventive kind of way, in a sensible way, to move in there
with thinning and other kinds of approaches, or we can, in
effect, wait until we have these infernos. That's what these
fires are.
You and I have talked about this. These are not natural
fires. These are fires that stem from years and years of
neglect. So, I very much share your view. We're just getting
into some of the details of your bill, but it certainly sounds
like you're very much on track. The Forest Service, I believe,
generally shares that view. There may be one or two issues that
we want to work with you on.
But, you and I have worked together on a lot of forestry
issues, and a lot of other matters. So, I'm looking forward to
moving ahead with your legislation.
Senator Risch, anything that you'd like to----
Senator Risch. Briefly, Senator Kyl, for those of us that
have been dealing with the issue for years, of fuel removal,
particularly around private property, or any kind of
improvements, we're really well aware of the necessity to
remove. It's a constant fight.
In Idaho we adopted a roadless plan. In fact, we're the
only State that has a State-approved roadless plan. It's part
of the negotiations with the stakeholders.
In the large part of that, we negotiated a system whereby
whatever the classification of the property immediately
adjacent to these small towns--and we have lots of small towns,
subdivisions, like your cabin is in, in Idaho--and we've
negotiated to where we can do treatments around those,
notwithstanding whatever the classification of the property is.
We've had some real successes in that regard. Everybody that's
ever fought fire knows exactly what happens when a fire hits
either a treated area or an area that's had a previous fire.
So, at least, this Senator's well aware of it, and we're
going to continue to do everything we can to convince others of
it. Appreciate you bringing those materials for us. They'll be
helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kyl. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do look forward to working with
you to try to get this moved forward as much as possible.
I think Chief Tidwell will tell you that the kind of
treatment that did occur saved three communities. There were
over 10,000 people evacuated from their homes at one point.
Three of the communities were saved because of this kind of
treatment. We need to do it elsewhere.
But, in the meantime, we've got some restoration work to
do, and this legislation will help us do the salvage and
restoration, and I thank you very much for your attention to
it.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Kyl. We will excuse you
at this time. You're, of course, welcome to stay if you want to
ask anything of Chief Tidwell.
Senator Kyl. We talked yesterday.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Thank you.
Let's bring forward our administrative witnesses--Robert
Abbey, Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of
the Interior; Thomas Tidwell, Chief of the Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture.
Gentlemen, if you all will come forward.
I'd also like at this time, as our witnesses are getting
settled, we have two statements from Chairman Bingaman, with
respect to his bill, S. 24, the Organ Mountains, which is an
important piece of legislation that he's joined in on by
Senator Tom Udall. We want to put that into the record. Senator
Alexander has spent a lot of time working on the Tennessee
Wilderness Act of 2011. This is a piece of legislation that he
and Senator Corker have worked on. They've both put a great
deal of time in working with all of the stakeholders and folks
at home. We're going to put both of their statements into the
record at this time.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senator From New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I would like to
briefly discuss one of the bills on your agenda today, S. 1024, the
Organ Mountains--Dona Ana County Conservation and Protection Act. I'd
like to thank my colleague, Senator Tom Udall, who has joined me in
sponsoring this bill.
Very briefly, this bill is very similar to legislation that we
sponsored during the previous Congress. It would designate
approximately 240,000 acres of public lands in southern New Mexico as
wilderness, as well as another 100,000 acres as National Conservation
Areas, all of which would be managed by the BLM.
The bill includes protection for the Organ Mountains, which are the
iconic backdrop for the city of Las Cruces. The bill would also
establish the Desert Peaks National Conservation Area to protect the
canyons of the Robledo and Uvas Mountains and the Broad Canyon
watershed which lies in between. And finally, the bill would protect
the Chihuahuan desert grasslands and volcanic cinder cones in the
Potrillo Mountains, which are located in the southwest portion of the
county.
Last Congress, we held two hearings on the previous version of this
bill--one in Washington and another in Las Cruces. Based on the
testimony we received at those hearings, we made further modifications
to the bill, all of which are included in this year's bill.
Among these changes were additional measures to improve border
security in southern New Mexico beyond what exists today. Based on
these modifications, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner
Alan Bersin wrote a letter to me last year indicating that the bill
``would significantly enhance the flexibility of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to operate in this border area.'' I would ask consent
to include Commissioner Bersin's entire letter* in the record. All of
the changes that we made to address border security issues are included
in the bill before the subcommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While last year's bill was reported favorably out of this
Committee, it unfortunately shared the same fate with all of the other
public land bills and we were unable to get floor time before the end
of the Congress. Despite the lengthy legislative process, I believe
public support in New Mexico for this legislation remains high, and it
is my hope that we will find a way to move this bill through the Senate
and House during this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I know the subcommittee has a very full agenda this
afternoon, and I appreciate this opportunity to discuss this bill.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lamar Alexander, U.S. Senator From Tennessee
Thank you Chairman Bingaman and Senator Murkowski.
I appreciate the invitation to speak before the committee about the
Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2011. This is the second year that Senator
Corker and I have introduced this legislation, but the first hearing
we've had, so I thank the committee for having this hearing.
Our bill will implement an important next step in conservation for
some of the wildest, most pristine and beautiful areas in East
Tennessee. Specifically, this bill will officially designate 19,556
acres in the Cherokee National Forest as ``wilderness areas.'' To say
that these are among the wildest, most pristine and beautiful areas in
East Tennessee sets a very high bar, since the region is home to the
Appalachian Mountains and our nation's most visited national park,
which is also a World Heritage Site, the Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. From growing up in these mountains and my many years of hiking
the quiet trails of the Cherokee National Forest, I can personally
attest that the wilderness areas we have protected there are something
very special.
I want to emphasize that the lands that will be designated as
wilderness area are already Federal lands, part of the Cherokee
National Forest. This was recommended for wilderness area designation
by the U.S. Forest Service in the development of their comprehensive
2004 forest plan, which included extensive opportunities for public
comment. And in these tight budget times, I think it is important to
note that these lands have been managed as Wilderness Study Areas since
2004, and passing the bill into law would require no additional cost to
the federal government to manage the land. Finally, our bill is also
supported by all of the county mayors from the Tennessee counties that
are impacted by this.
Congress began protecting wilderness areas in the Cherokee National
Forest in 1975 with additional wilderness areas being established by
the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 1984 and the Tennessee Wilderness Act
of 1986. The bill before the committee today will make important
additions to this legacy of Tennessee's natural heritage. Combined,
these areas have the effect of better protecting not only ecosystems
and watersheds, but also the diverse recreational value of these areas.
Congress first took steps to protect wilderness areas in the 1964
Wilderness Act. Members of Congress then showed extraordinary
prescience about the threats that destroy wilderness, in section 2(a)
of the Act Congress states, ``In order to assure that an increasing
population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing
mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas of the United
States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for
preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby
declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American
people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring
resource of wilderness.''
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple bill, but it will make a significant
contribution for these wild and pristine portions of the Cherokee
National Forest.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski
Senator Wyden. Let's go forward, then, with the testimony
of our witnesses, beginning with you, Mr. Abbey.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT ABBEY, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Abbey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Risch. It's
certainly a pleasure for me to testify today on behalf of the
Department of the Interior.
I will give a brief summary of my written testimony before
this subcommittee today on three bills--S. 1024, regarding the
New Mexico Wilderness; S. 1144, on soda ash royalty, and S.
1149, on geothermal leasing.
S. 1024, the Organ Mountain Desert Peaks Wilderness Act,
designates two new National Conservation Areas and eight new
Wilderness Areas in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. Also within
the county, the legislation releases nearly 31,000 acres from
Wilderness Study Area status, transfers land from the
Department of Defense to the Bureau of Land Management for
inclusion within the National Conservation Area, and withdraws
certain additional lands from disposal, mining, and mineral
leasing.
Finally, in order to provide the greatest flexibility to
the Department of Homeland Security and other law enforcement
agencies, the bill includes a number of provisions to
facilitate and improve border security.
The Department of Interior supports S. 1024, and welcomes
opportunities to engage in important discussions such as this
that advance protection of some of America's most compelling
landscapes.
S. 1144, the Soda Ash Competition Act, extends for 5 years
the royalty rate reduction provided for by a 2006 act of
Congress for sodium mined on Federal lands. The provisions of
the Soda Ash Reduction Act of 2006 expire in October.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, our Department is completing a
report analyzing the effects of the current royalty reduction,
and we'll be providing a recommendation from the Secretary
about continuing this reduction. The BLM has been working with
other agencies within the Department of the Interior to prepare
this report and will be providing it to you this September.
We believe the information in our report may be helpful to
Members of the Congress when assessing the merits of S. 1144.
Our report will address the amount of sodium compounds and
related products shipped to market from Federal lands; the
number of jobs that have been created or maintained as a result
of the royalty reduction; the royalty paid to the United States
on the sodium compounds and related products, and a portion
paid to states; and, as I mentioned earlier, a recommendation
of whether the reduced royalty rate should continue.
S. 1149 authorities the BLM to non-competitively lease
Federal geothermal resources when a discovery of these
resources is made that extends into adjoining unleased Federal
lands. Under this legislation, a non-competitive lease may be
made available for areas less than 640 acres that have not
already been leased, are nominated to be leased competitively.
Under the provisions of the legislation, the lessee would
pay fair market value for the non-competitive lease in
accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary of the
Interior. The bill establishes a minimal price on the amount
the Secretary may determine the fair market value to be.
This legislation would make proposed fair market value
determinations open for public comment and would allowed a
qualified lessee and any effected party to appeal the
determination. Further, a lease awarded non-competitively would
be assessed the annual rental rate of leases awarded
competitively.
The Department of the Interior supports the goal of
enhancing geothermal exploration and development. We believe
the bill's provision that the Secretary of the Interior
establishes regulatory procedures for determining fair market
values of adjoining lands is the most effective way to ensure a
fair return to American taxpayers.
This legislation addresses several concerns that the
Department raised during consideration of earlier legislation.
We do have, or, still have a concern with a few provisions of
S. 1149, including the minimal value provision and the short
timeframes identified to conduct a rulemaking process. We'd
like to work with the members of the subcommittee to address
these issues.
We appreciate, again, the opportunity to appear before this
subcommittee to testify today, and we'll be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Abbey follow:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Abbey, Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior
s. 1024
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 1024, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act. The
Administration supports S. 1024, which designates two new National
Conservation Areas (NCAs) and eight new wilderness areas in Doa Ana
County, New Mexico. We welcome this opportunity to enhance protection
for some of America's treasured landscapes.
Background
Dona Ana County is many things--the county with the second highest
population in New Mexico; home to Las Cruces, one of the fastest
growing cities in the country; and a land of amazing beauty. Towering
mountain ranges, dramatic deserts, and fertile valleys characterize
this corner of the Land of Enchantment. The Organ Mountains, east of
the city of Las Cruces, dominate the landscape. Characterized by steep,
angular, barren rock outcroppings, the Organ Mountains rise to nearly
9,000 feet in elevation and extend for 20 miles, running generally
north and south. This high-desert landscape within the Chihuahua Desert
contains a multitude of biological zones--mixed desert shrubs and
grasslands in the lowlands ascending to pion and juniper woodlands, and
finally to ponderosa pines at the highest elevations. Consequently, the
area is home to a high diversity of animal life, including peregrine
falcons and other raptors, as well as mountain lions and other mammals.
Abundant prehistoric cultural sites, dating back 8,000 years, dot the
landscape. The Organ Mountains are a popular recreation area, with
multiple hiking trails, a popular campground, and opportunities for
hunting, mountain biking, and other dispersed recreation.
On the west side of Las Cruces are the mountain ranges and peaks of
the Robledo Mountains and Sierra de las Uvas, which make up the Desert
Peaks area. These desert landscapes are characterized by numerous mesas
and buttes interspersed with deep canyons and arroyos. Mule deer,
mountain lions, and golden eagles and other raptors are attracted to
this varied landscape. Prehistoric cultural sites of the classic
Mimbres and El Paso phases are sprinkled throughout this region along
with historic sites associated with more recent settlements. This area
is also home to the unusual Night-blooming Cereus--seeing the one-
night-a-year bloom in its natural surroundings is a rare delight.
Finally, the area provides varied disbursed recreational opportunities.
To the southwest of Las Cruces, near the Mexican border, is the
Potrillo Mountains Complex. The geologic genesis of these mountains is
different from that of the Organ Mountains and Desert Peaks area.
Cinder cones, volcanic craters, basalt lava flows, and talus slopes
characterize this corner of Doa Ana County. These lands are famous for
their abundant wildlife, and contain significant fossil resources. A
well-preserved giant ground sloth skeleton, now housed at Yale
University, was discovered in this area. The sheer breadth of these
lands and their open, expansive vistas offer remarkable opportunities
for solitude.
Senator Bingaman and a wide range of local governments,
communities, user groups, conservationists, and Federal agencies have
worked collaboratively to develop this consensus proposal to protect
all of these special areas.
S. 1024
S. 1024 proposes to designate two new NCAs and eight wilderness
areas in Doa Ana County, New Mexico, which would be included in BLM's
National Landscape Conservation System. The legislation also releases
nearly 31,000 acres from wilderness study area (WSA) status, transfers
land from the Department of the Defense (DOD) to the BLM for inclusion
within an NCA, and withdraws certain additional lands from disposal,
mining, and mineral leasing.
Section 3 of S. 1024 designates eight wilderness areas totaling
approximately 241,000 acres. The BLM supports the proposed wilderness
designations in S. 1024. We would like the opportunity to work with the
Chairman on minor boundary modifications for manageability.
These new wilderness designations are in three distinct areas of
the county. First, within the proposed 86,000 acre Organ Mountains NCA,
19,200 acres would be designated as the Organ Mountains Wilderness.
The second area is within the Desert Peaks National Conservation
Area proposed in this legislation. The bill proposes three designations
in this area: Broad Canyon Wilderness (13,900 acres); Robledo Mountains
Wilderness (17,000 acres); and Sierra de las Uvas Wilderness (11,100
acres). These three areas are within the 75,550-acre Desert Peaks NCA.
Within the Robledo Mountains Wilderness, a small corridor of
approximately 100 acres has been designated as ``potential wilderness''
by section 3(g) of S. 1024. The lands included in this potential
wilderness contain a communications right-of-way, and it is our
understanding that it is the intention of the Chairman to allow the
continued use of this site by the current lessees. However, in the
event that the communications right-of-way is relinquished, these lands
would be reclaimed and become part of the wilderness area. We support
this provision.
Finally, the Potrillo Mountains complex in the southwest corner of
Doa Ana County includes: Aden Lava Flow Wilderness (27,675 acres);
Cinder Cone Wilderness (16,950 acres); Potrillo Mountains Wilderness
(125,850 acres); and Whitethorn Wilderness (9,600 acres). Both the
Potrillo Mountains Wilderness and Whitethorn Wilderness extend into
adjacent Luna County.
Two National Conservation Areas are established by section 4 of the
legislation--the Organ Mountains NCA and the Desert Peaks NCA. As noted
above, both of these NCAs include proposed designated wilderness within
their boundaries. Each of the NCAs designated by Congress and managed
by the BLM is unique. However, all NCA designations have certain
critical elements in common, including withdrawal from the public land,
mining, and mineral leasing laws; off-highway vehicle use limitations;
and language that charges the Secretary of the Interior with allowing
only those uses that further the purposes for which the NCA is
established. Furthermore, NCA designations should not diminish the
protections that currently apply to the lands. Section 4 of the bill
honors these principles, and the BLM supports the designation of both
of these NCAs.
Much of the lands proposed for both wilderness and NCA designations
have been historically grazed by domestic livestock, and grazing
continues today. Many of BLM's existing wilderness areas and NCAs
throughout the West are host to livestock grazing, which is compatible
with these designations. This use will continue within the NCAs and
wilderness areas designated by S. 1024.
Section 4(f) of the bill transfers administrative jurisdiction of
2,050 acres from DOD to the BLM. These lands, currently part of the
Army's Fort Bliss, would be incorporated into the Organ Mountains NCA.
The lands to be transferred include the dramatic and scenic Fillmore
Canyon as well as the western slopes of Organ Peak and Ice Canyon. We
would welcome these lands into BLM's National System of Public Lands.
Section 6 of S. 1024 concerns the recently established Prehistoric
Trackways National Monument, just southeast of the proposed Desert
Peaks NCA. The Monument was established in Title II, Subtitle B of the
Omnibus Public Land Act (Public Law 111-11) signed by the President on
March 30 2009. Section 6 of S. 1024 addresses recent additional
discoveries of 280 million-year old reptile, insect, and plant fossils
on adjacent BLM-managed lands by adding 670 acres to the Monument. The
BLM supports this expansion of the Monument.
Section 5(d) of the legislation provides for the withdrawal of two
parcels of BLM-managed lands from the land, mining, and mineral leasing
laws. The parcel designated as ``Parcel A'' is approximately 1,300
acres of BLM-managed lands on the eastern outskirts of Las Cruces. This
parcel is a popular hiking and mountain biking site, and provides easy
access to the peak of the Tortugas Mountains. From here, visitors can
take in spectacular views of Las Cruces and the Rio Grande Valley. We
understand that Chairman Bingaman's goal is to ensure that these lands
are preserved for continued recreational use by Las Cruces residents.
The legislation provides for a possible lease of these lands to a
governmental or nonprofit agency under the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act. The larger, 6,500 acre parcel, designated as ``Parcel
B,'' lies on the southern end of the proposed Organ Mountains NCA. It
is our understanding that Chairman Bingaman considered adding this
parcel to the NCA because of important resource values. However, a
multitude of current uses make inclusion of this parcel in the NCA
inconsistent with the purposes established for the NCA. Therefore, the
limited withdrawal of the parcel will better serve to protect the
resources within this area without negatively affecting the current
uses of the area. The BLM supports the withdrawal of both of these
parcels.
In order to provide the greatest flexibility to the Department of
Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies, the bill includes
a number of provisions to facilitate and improve border security.
First, the legislation releases over 28,000 acres from WSA status along
the southern boundary of the proposed Potrillo Mountains Wilderness.
Additionally, it places 16,525 acres along that southern boundary in a
``restricted use area.'' The Secretary is charged with protecting the
wilderness character of these lands to the extent practicable, while at
the same time allowing for the installation of communications and
surveillance facilities that may be necessary for law enforcement and
border security purposes. Finally, in order to provide additional
flexibility to law enforcement personnel, the bill keeps open for
administrative and law enforcement uses only, an east-west route
bisecting the Potrillo Mountains Wilderness.
Finally, the BLM, along with many partners, has undertaken
restoration efforts on nearly two million acres in New Mexico, with the
goal of restoring grasslands, woodlands, and riparian areas to their
original healthy conditions. The BLM will continue to implement
appropriate land restoration activities that will benefit watershed and
wildlife health.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1024.
Both the BLM and the Department welcome opportunities to engage in
important discussions such as this that advance the protection of some
of America's most compelling landscapes. Passage of this legislation
will ensure that generations of New Mexicans and all Americans will be
able to witness a golden eagle soar over the Sierra de las Uvas, hike
the landmark Organ Mountains, or hunt in the volcanic outcroppings of
the Potrillo Mountains.
s. 1144
Good morning and thank you for inviting the Department of the
Interior to testify today on S. 1144, the Soda Ash Competition Act,
which extends for 5 years the royalty rate reduction provisions of the
Soda Ash Reduction Act of 2006 (2006 Act).
At this time, the legislation is premature, pending the completion
of a report that will analyze the effects of the royalty reduction
under the 2006 Act, and contain a recommendation from the Secretary
about continuing the royalty reduction.
Soda ash is one of several products derived from sodium minerals
mined on public lands and is used in many common products, including
glass, pulp, detergents, and baking soda. The mineral trona is a
naturally occurring mixture of sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate,
and water. Soda ash, or ``sodium carbonate,'' is refined from trona
mined at depths of between 800 and 1,600 feet below the surface.
Soda ash may be either natural or synthetic. It can be extracted
from mined natural trona deposits, or it can be manufactured
synthetically. Synthetic soda ash production began in this country in
the 1880s and increased as the demand for soda ash increased.
In the early 1950s, the modern natural soda ash industry began in
the Green River Basin of Wyoming, home of the world's largest known
natural deposit of trona. In 2010, the U.S. soda ash industry consisted
of five companies that mine and mill soda ash, four of which operate
five plants in Wyoming. One company in California produces soda ash
from sodium-carbonate rich brines. At the end of FY 2010, there were 86
Federal sodium leases covering 113,886 acres in Wyoming, California,
Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. Sixty-one of these Federal sodium
leases were located in Wyoming.
Although in 2010 soda ash represented only 2 percent of the
nation's $39 billion nonfuel mineral industry, its use in many
diversified products, including flat glass for the automobile and
construction industries, makes it a substantial contributor to the
gross domestic product of the United States.
Soda Ash Report
A provision of the 2006 Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
to report on the effects of the royalty rate reduction at the end of
the 4-year period after enactment and before the end of the fifth year.
According to the Act, the report must discuss:
The amount of sodium compounds and related products shipped
to market from Federal lands;
The number of jobs that have been created or maintained;
The royalty paid to the United States on the sodium
compounds and related products and the portion paid to states;
and
A recommendation of whether the reduced royalty rate should
continue.
The report is to include an analysis of data on production,
exports, sales values, employment, and royalties. The benchmarks
against which the effects of the royalty reduction are evaluated are
the conditions that would have been anticipated to prevail absent the
royalty reduction. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been working
with the Department to finalize the report so that it may be
transmitted it to Congress in order to meet the October 11, 2011,
timeframe.
The BLM can offer some insight at this time into its factual
findings. Specific to the three questions identified in the Act:
Total domestic sodium minerals sales from FY 2002 through FY
2010 ranged from 12.2 million tons to 13.8 million tons
annually based on information reported by the Department's
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR). In FY 2006, the
year before the royalty reduction took effect, total domestic
sales of sodium compounds and related products were
approximately 12.9 million tons. The following year, domestic
sodium sales increased 7 percent, reaching 13.8 million tons.
By FY 2010, domestic sales were approximately 13 million tons,
or about 1 percent higher than the total in FY 2006.
Based on available data\1\, overall employment has not
increased since passage of the Act. An analysis of the number
of jobs maintained depends on a number of factors such as the
overall soda ash market conditions and employee productivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on data from the United States Geological Survey Mineral
Commodity Summaries, the Industrial Minerals Association--North
America, and the Wyoming State Inspector of Mines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Royalty payments on sales of sodium from Federal leases
ranged from a low of $10.3 million in FY 2004 and peaked in FY
2006 at $29.1 million. From FY 2006 to FY 2007, there was a
steep drop in royalty payments as a result of the royalty rate
reduction authorized under the Act. Since passage of the Act,
Federal royalty payments have illion per year.
The BLM is also able to identify that:
For the four years following passage of the Act, total sales
revenues from sodium production was more than 60 percent higher
than the total sales revenues from the four years before
passage of the Act based largely on increases in the commodity
prices. For example, the weighted average annual sodium price
rose from about $89 per ton in FY 2006, the year before the Act
took effect, to approximately $126 per ton in FY 2009.
Since passage of the Act, a significant amount of production
has shifted from state leases and private (fee) lands onto
Federal leases, according to data from ONRR.
United States exports of soda ash gradually increased from
FY 2002 through FY 2008, dropping in FY 2009 during the global
economic downturn. United States exports recovered in FY 2010,
and were 11.7 percent higher than the export totals for FY
2006.
The 2006 Act requires the Secretary to make a recommendation as to
whether the royalty rate reduction should be continued. If enacted, S.
1144 would make the Secretary's recommendation moot.
S. 1144
S. 1144 updates the original Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act by
extending the royalty rate of 2 percent for 5 years, until October
2016. The Act waives the requirements of section 102 (a)(9) of the
Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), section 24 of the
Mineral Leasing Act, and the terms of any lease under the Act. The
FLPMA citation states that it is the policy of the United States to
receive fair market value for the use of public lands and their
resources unless otherwise provided by statute. The Mineral Leasing Act
sets the royalty rate at not less than 2 percent.
Before the royalty reduction Act went into effect in 2006, the BLM
was charging royalty rates of 6 and 8 percent. The BLM established
these rates based on a study to examine the fair market value in the
sodium industry in Wyoming. The study reviewed many comparable state
and private leases and found that fair market value in Wyoming appeared
to be somewhat higher than the 5 percent being charged by the BLM at
that time. As a result of the study, the BLM determined that the
royalty for all then-existing leases would be increased from 5 to 6
percent at the lease renewal date. The BLM, based on the study, also
determined that the royalty rate on all new leases would be 8 percent.
In the Green River Basin at that time, the royalty rate on most private
land was 8 percent and 5 percent on State lands.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on S. 1144. I would
be glad to answer your questions.
s. 1149
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior on
S. 1149, the Geothermal Production Expansion Act. S. 1149 would amend
the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to allow non-competitive leasing of
Federal geothermal energy resources when a valid geothermal discovery
is made on adjoining lands. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
supports the goal of enhancing geothermal exploration and development
by ensuring that valid discoveries can be responsibly developed.
Accordingly, the BLM generally supports S. 1149, and believes that the
bill's provision that the Secretary of the Interior establish
regulatory procedures for determining fair market values of adjoining
lands is the most effective way to ensure a fair return to American
taxpayers. The BLM has concerns with a few provisions in the
legislation and would like to work with the Committee to address them.
Background
Geothermal energy resources on Federal lands are leased and managed
in accordance with the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (GSA), which was
amended by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The EPAct made
extensive changes to the law governing geothermal leasing and royalty
policies. The changes were designed to encourage geothermal energy
development and simplify the royalty structure, while ensuring a fair
return for the use of Federal lands and geothermal resources. The GSA,
as amended, provides the BLM with the authority for leasing and
managing geothermal resources on the public lands, and the delegated
authority for leasing geothermal resources on lands managed by the U.S.
Forest Service (FS). In 2008, the BLM and FS jointly prepared and
issued a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) that
analyzed the potential for geothermal leasing on their respective
lands. Based on this analysis, the BLM and FS have opened 192 million
acres to potential geothermal leasing.
Federal geothermal resources have the potential to make an
important contribution toward the President's goal of increasing energy
production from clean, renewable sources. To date, the BLM has issued
818 geothermal leases that cover 1.2 million acres of Federal lands.
Approximately 59 leases have reached producing status with a generating
capacity of nearly 1,300 megawatts (MW). These producing leases account
for more than 40 percent of current U.S. geothermal capacity. Despite
this progress, the development of geothermal energy is just beginning,
and its future role and importance is expected to increase
significantly, from the current level to 12,200 MW by 2025, according
to estimates in the 2008 PEIS. Notably, this is often baseload power
that does not have the variable qualities of some other renewable
sources and may pair well with them.
The BLM's geothermal leasing program is administered under
regulations (43 CFR 3200 and 3280) issued in 2007 to reflect the 2005
EPAct's amendments to the GSA. Under these regulations, most leases for
geothermal development on Federal lands are offered initially through
competitive oral auctions, which are held about twice per year.
Typically, the parcels offered at auction are nominated for lease by
industry, but may also be nominated by the public, or by Federal,
state, and local governments. Since competitive auctions began in 2007,
a total of 366 geothermal leases have been sold, generating more than
$74 million in revenue. In addition to the price paid at auction,
geothermal lease holders pay annual per-acre rental fees until
production begins. Thereafter, lease holders pay royalties or fees on
production.
Lease parcels that do not receive a bid at auction are made
available for noncompetitive lease for a period of 2 years, at a price
of $1.00 per acre. In addition, noncompetitive geothermal leases may be
offered under certain conditions for direct, on-site energy uses, which
include the use of geothermal steam and hot water in greenhouses and
aquaculture. Noncompetitive leases are also offered to qualified mining
claim holders.
S. 1149
S. 1149 seeks to focus Federal geothermal energy leasing activities
toward entities that intend to develop geothermal resources rather than
toward those who may intend to obtain leases for parcels with
geothermal resources for speculative purposes. More specifically, the
bill aims to address a practice whereby speculators purchase at auction
Federal geothermal leases for parcels that are located adjacent to
parcels of Federal or private land with existing geothermal leases or
developments. This practice is viewed by some as an effort to
capitalize upon another company's geothermal exploration efforts, and
is a disincentive for future geothermal investment and development.
Because the geothermal competitive leasing program is open to all
qualified bidders, the potential exists for such speculative activity.
To address this concern, the legislation authorizes non-competitive
leasing of adjoining Federal geothermal resources when a valid
discovery of geothermal resources is made, and the geothermal resources
are shown to extend into unleased Federal land. Under the bill, a
Federal non-competitive lease would be available only for areas not
exceeding 640 acres that have not already been leased or nominated to
be leased competitively. Only one noncompetitive lease could be issued
for each valid geothermal discovery.
To qualify for a noncompetitive lease under this legislation, an
applicant would have to demonstrate, consistent with industry
standards, a valid discovery of a geothermal resource. An applicant
also would have to present sufficient geological and technical data
showing that the geothermal resource extends into adjoining Federal
lands.
Section 3 of S. 1149 would amend Section 4(b) of the GSA to define
fair market value per acre for the non-competitive lease. Under the
provisions of Section 3, the lessee would pay fair market value for the
non-competitive lease in accordance with regulations issued by the
Secretary of the Interior. The bill would set a minimum price on how
much the Secretary may determine the fair market value to be at not
less than the greater of $50 per acre, or four times the median amount
paid per acre for all land leased during the preceding year.
This legislation would make proposed fair market value
determinations open for public comment for a period of 30 days and
would allow a qualified lessee and any affected party to appeal a fair
market value determination. Further, the lease awarded non-
competitively would be assessed the annual rental rate of leases
awarded competitively.
The BLM supports the objective of S. 1149 to enhance geothermal
development by increasing investor confidence that geothermal
discoveries could be fully developed. Additionally, BLM supports a
requirement that regulations be promulgated to establish procedures for
determining the fair market value of leases on adjoining lands.
The BLM is concerned, however, about the provision of S. 1149 that
sets a minimum price on how much the Secretary may determine the fair
market value to be. Though the minimum price set forth in the bill may
provide some assurance of a return to American taxpayers, the price may
not reflect a fair market value. The BLM believes that the provision is
unnecessary, because under the bill, the Secretary would be required to
establish procedures for determining fair market values of these
leases. With these procedures, the BLM would consider a number of
factors, including available information on the known resources and the
value of other leases within the local market, in determining a price
that is fair for that lease. Thus, the BLM recommends that the
provision that sets a minimum price be removed from the bill.
The BLM also has concerns with the timeframes included in the
legislation. Specifically, the promulgation of regulations issued by
the Secretary typically requires more than 180 days. The 90 days
provided in the bill for determining the fair market value of a lease
may not be adequate to conduct such an evaluation.
Conclusion
The BLM supports efforts to enhance geothermal exploration and
development in the United States in a manner that is fair to geothermal
developers and other participants in the competitive leasing process.
We must ensure those efforts result in a fair return to the American
taxpayers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Mr. Tidwell.
STATEMENT OF TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to provide the Department's views on S.
1344, the Arizona Wallow Fire and Recovery Monitoring Act, and
S. 1090, the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2011.
With the Tennessee Wilderness Act, we strongly support this
legislation. It would add about 19,586 acres of the Cherokee
National Forest in east Tennessee to the Wilderness System.
This bill would create one new Wilderness Area, and expand the
boundaries of five existing Wilderness Areas.
All of these areas were identified in the 2004 Cherokee
National Forest plan, to be recommended to Congress for your
consideration to add these areas to the Wilderness System.
Currently, these areas are used for dispersed recreation,
hunting, and hiking. By adding these parcels, you would be
expanding the current areas to better provide the wilderness
characteristics of solitude, undeveloped landscapes, and
preserving historic and cultural significant areas.
As you well know, forest plans are a product of extensive
public involvement, including countless public meetings with
local government, local communities, and just all the
interested public. Based on the public input, these areas are
recommended to Congress for your consideration as Wilderness.
Congressional designation of these areas as Wilderness would be
the culmination of this planning process.
Now, with S. 1344, the Arizona Wallow Fire and Recovery
Monitoring Act, the Department supports the objectives and
purpose of this legislation and agrees with the urgency for us
to respond to the consequences of this fire. The Wallow fire
burned over 535,000 acres of National forest, as well as
tribal, State and private lands--the largest fire in Arizona
history. I want to assure you that we understand and we
appreciate the magnitude and the scope of the task ahead of us
to restore these landscapes and recover the economic value of
some of the timber while we can, and we've already started
work.
We started that with our Burned Area Emergency Response.
We've already seeded about 36,000 acres of about 80,000 that
are planned; we've spread straw mulch on over 18,000 acres of
the 25,000 acres that we feel that we need to put this
treatment on; and we're currently removing hazard trees along
245 miles of road. There's an additional about 40 miles of
powerline corridors that we also feel we need to remove the
hazard trees. This is all part of the Burned Area Emergency
Response, the BAER, work.
In addition, there's another 300 miles of road--excuse me--
350 miles of road, about 10,000 acres, that we need to harvest
the hazard trees off, to just deal with the threat to public
safety.
Now, we're using categorical exclusions to address a lot of
this work, and we'll be, soon be advertising, you know, the
sales from this work.
All of this roadside and corridor treatment were, will be
concluded by the end of 2012.
In addition, like Senator Kyl referenced, we have a rapid
assessment team that's actually going to have their report
completely, hopefully by the end of the week, that will
actually identify the rest of the restoration work that needs
to be done, and also the opportunity for salvage work, in
addition to what the BAER work has already completed.
So, in addition to using the CEEs to quickly accomplish the
roadside hazard tree harvest, we're also going to use the
opportunity we have to issue additional task orders under the
existing White Mountain Stewardship Contract. That will help us
also to quickly recover some of the economic value of this
material and be able to get the restoration work started,
The Forest right now is planning on completing an
environmental analysis for the rest of the work, and hopefully
we'll have that done by early spring. We're working with an
approach that we refer to as more of a streamlined NEPA
approach that, we feel that this restoration work fits in very
well with using this streamlined approach so that we can get
the NEPA completed by early next year, so we can complete, get
started on the rest of the work.
We recognize to be able to recover any of the economic
value of the trees, that we have about 2 years to be able to
get this material harvested so it's usable as saw timber. For
biomass purposes, it'll last, you know, much longer than that.
So, with the bill itself--and I've had this discussion with
Senator Kyl--that we want to make sure that we are allowed to
continue our current flexibilities of using CEEs along with,
you know, using an EEA.
The other thing that this bill does, it provides for the
use of a pre-decisional objection process that--it's been our
finding that by using this, versus our current appeals process,
it actually gives the public another opportunity to raise their
concerns before a final decision is issued, and it makes this
process much more collaborative. It makes our NEPA process much
more collaborative. Also, it's been our experience that it
allows us to have a, to move a little bit sooner to be able to
implement our project. So, we appreciate having that authority
to use the objection process.
You know, under our salvage sale authority and stewardship
authority, we can retain the receipts, but if we were using a
timber sale to remove any of this material, those receipts
would go to the Treasury. This bill would allow us to retain
those receipts.
As devastating as the Wallow fire was, I tell you, it would
have been so much worse without the thousands of acres, the
50,000 acres of treatment that was done through the White
Mountain Stewardship Project.
I've brought just one photo with me today--and I think you
have a copy up there--and it's out of the report that Senator
Kyl referenced. But this is one picture that shows, once again,
how this fire, this racing fire that was coming over the top of
the mountain; and as it moved toward the community of Alpine,
it was a running crown fire. When it hit the treated areas,
which were mid-slope--and you can see it identified in that
photo--that's when the fire got out of the top of the trees,
came down onto the ground, and allowed our firefighters to be
successful with their suppression efforts.
From, based on the first ten reports from our firefighters
out there, and when I was out there on the ground and looked at
it, without this treatment that we did throughout this part of
the forest, we would have lost, you know, significantly more
homes than the few that we did.
I cannot stress enough about the importance of the work
that we're doing through collaboration and stewardship
contracting on a landscape scale. Without that question, that
work modifies the fire behavior; allows our suppression efforts
to be successful; it protects our communities; and it creates
jobs.
In summary, the Department supports the objectives of this
legislation, and we want to work with the subcommittee on some
of the specific provisions, while we still want to continue our
ongoing work, you know, to address the objections of this
legislation.
In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tidwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Tidwell, Chief, Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture, on S. 1344 and S. 1090
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to provide the Department of Agriculture's views on S. 1344, the
``Arizona Wallow Fire Recovery and Monitoring Act'' and S. 1090, the
``Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2011.''
s. 1344, the arizona wallow fire recovery and monitoring act
The Department supports the objectives and comprehensive response
that underlie the legislation and agrees that the response to this fire
should be addressed with a sense of urgency. With or without this
legislation, the U.S Forest Service is committed to accomplish the
restoration objectives in a timely manner. The Wallow Fire burned over
a half million acres of National Forest System land, as well as tribal,
state and private lands (including lands in New Mexico). In terms of
acres of forest burned, the Wallow Fire was the largest fire in
Arizona's history. The effects of this wildfire are significant for the
communities of eastern Arizona. I want to assure you that the U.S.
Forest Service understands and appreciates the magnitude and scope of
the task ahead to restore the landscapes damaged by this fire and we
have already started this work.
Background
Igniting on May 29, 2011 in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest
southwest of Alpine, Arizona, the Wallow Fire was contained on July
8th. Its cause is under investigation. The fire's burned area includes
840 square miles (535,000 acres) and includes 24 square miles (15,000
acres) of western New Mexico. Nearly half of the Wallow Fire's burned
area (48%) is classified as low burn severity, 14% moderate severity
and 16% high severity. Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER)
assessments have been completed with approved funding and prescriptions
being implemented. USDA agencies and Arizona State agencies are
assisting the Forest Service at public workshops to provided
information on programs and assistance to home owners and small
businesses affected by fires and/or floods. At the zenith of the Wallow
Fire's run more than 4,700 firefighters from the Forest Service and
cooperating agencies responded. Moreover, fuels treatments developed
with private citizens and state and local governments as part of the
White Mountain Stewardship Project and implemented between 2004 and
2011 successfully reduced fire behavior near the Arizona communities of
Greer, Eagar, Nutrioso, and Alpine.
Current Planning
The Forest Service is in the process of conducting an evaluation
which includes an assessment of restoration needs and salvage as
required by the bill. In order to assess the magnitude of the
restoration needs resulting from the Wallow Fire, a Rapid Assessment
Team was assembled. The Team is currently developing a comprehensive
restoration plan for the Wallow Fire area. The plan will identify and
organize all restoration needs for the Wallow Fire area, including on-
going Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) projects, and projects to
reduce risks to health and safety in the short term and restore the
area over the longer term. The Forest Service will adjust work
priorities in order to focus the resources necessary to ensure the
recovery of the Wallow Fire area.
Ongoing and Proposed Work
The Forest Service's BAER work is ongoing. We have just completed
seeding some 36,000 acres of 80,000 acres projected for seeding,
spreading straw on 18,000 acres of 25,000 projected, and are currently
removing hazard trees along 245 miles of road from a projected 300
miles of road needing treatment. The roadside hazard tree removal could
result in approximately 162,000 tons of material. Approximately 39
miles of power line corridors have been identified for emergency hazard
tree removal (BAER work) in conjunction with various power companies.
In addition, our post-emergency assessment shows that there is a
substantial risk of falling hazard trees along an additional 350 miles
of roads and power line corridors. These roads and power line corridors
are critically important to the communities of Greer, Alpine, Nutrioso,
and Eagar, among others. We estimate that treatments within these
corridors could result in the removal of approximately 150,000 tons of
material on approximately 10,400 acres. In order to minimize the safety
risk and provide employment opportunities, we plan to proceed
expeditiously so that some of the wood can be used for higher valued
products.
Collaborative Efforts
The White Mountain Stewardship collaborative, a diverse group of
local, state, tribal, environmental and other partners, is assisting us
in developing our rehabilitation plans. Our plan is to complete the
environmental analyses and administrative review for the projects to
carry out the plan, and prepare the contracts over the next several
months. Roadside corridor work would conclude by the end of 2012. Other
projects would conclude as expeditiously as possible. Our plan is to
use our current authorities to utilize receipts for future salvage
sales that carry out post-fire rehabilitation. We are planning to work
with many of the same individuals and groups in monitoring our
rehabilitation work.
Provisions of the Bill
Section 4 of S. 1344 would direct the Secretary to prepare a hazard
tree and commercial timber evaluation. The evaluation would describe
the forest conditions in the Wallow Fire Area and the short-and long-
term risks posed by the conditions. The evaluation also would include a
map of the areas for potential hazard tree removal, a map of areas for
potential fire-damaged commercial tree removal, and a map of areas
where harvest should not be considered. In the evaluation, the
Secretary would be required to describe one or more proposals for
timber removal projects and a description of the desired outcomes of
rehabilitation and tree removal. The Secretary would involve the public
in preparing the evaluation and would be required to complete the
evaluation within 45 days after initiating it.
Section 5 of S. 1344 also would provide that a timber removal
project carried out under the bill would limited to the removal of
hazard trees and the removal of trees that are already down, dead, or
severely root-sprung such that there is a high probability of
mortality. The bill would require the Secretary to prepare an
environmental assessment for a timber removal project carried out under
the bill for portions of the Wallow Fire Area that are in a Community
Protection Management Area. The Secretary would not be required to
consider any alternative to the proposed agency action in the
environmental assessment. Any timber removal project carried out in the
Wallow Fire Area would be subject to the pre-decisional objection
process under section 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act
(HFRA). S.1344 also specifies that receipts from timber removal
projects be available, without further appropriation for restoration
purposes on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest in the State of
Arizona.
Departmental Perspective on Specific Bill Provisions
While we support the objectives of S. 1344, we note that the Forest
Service already has appropriated funds, stewardship contracting
authority, and the salvage sale fund to address various forest
management scenarios proposed in the bill. In complying with NEPA under
current authorities, the Forest Service is utilizing categorical
exclusions for tree removal projects in certain high risk areas. We
would prefer that any legislation maintain this flexibility. Under
current authorities, the Forest Service is required to use a post-
decisional appeals process and does not have the option of using the
pre-decisional objection process in HFRA except for hazardous fuel
reduction projects covered by HFRA. The HFRA pre-decisional review
procedures provide the public with an opportunity to raise concerns
before a final decision is issued, making the process more
collaborative and helpful.
Demonstrated Benefits of White Mountain Stewardship and Anticipated
Benefits from the Four Forests Restoration Initiative
As devastating as the Wallow fire was, it could have been
significantly worse if it had not been for the thousands of acres that
had been treated as part of the White Mountain Stewardship project. The
accomplishments of the White Mountain Stewardship project have been
significant--50,851 acres treated as of July 23, 2011. The Community
Wildfire Protection Plans for the communities of Nutrioso, Eagar,
Alpine and Greer provided much of the guidance for the accomplishment
of that work. There is no doubt that a significant number of
neighborhoods and portions of the forest were spared thanks to this
work. The forest fuels thinning and removals in the path of this fire
clearly demonstrate what can be accomplished through collaboration and
stewardship contracting at the landscape scale. Fire behavior can be
modified, communities can be protected, local jobs can be created, and
relationships between organizations and individuals can be built. The
Four Forests Restoration Project (4FRI) is the next step in expanding
this collaborative model. Through the 4FRI is a Collaborative Forest
Landscape Restoration (CFLRP) project, the Forest Service aspires to
restore approximately 2.4 million acres of ponderosa pine forests on
portions of the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto National
Forests in Northern Arizona over the next 20 years. In the past two
years, more than eleven million dollars has been committed to this
initiative.
In summary, the Department supports the objectives of this
legislation. However, we are already engaged in focusing our workforce
and resources to accomplish these objectives in an expeditious manner
and we have the appropriate authorities to meet the intent of this
legislation.
s. 1090, the tennessee wilderness act of 2011
S. 1090, the ``Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2011,'' would designate
seven parcels totaling 19,586 acres as wilderness in the Cherokee
National Forest in east Tennessee. The Department strongly supports
this legislation.
S. 1090 would create one new wilderness area and expand the
boundaries of five existing wilderness areas:
1) The Upper Bald River Wilderness includes 9,038 acres and
contains headwaters of streams that drain into the Tellico
River.
2) The Big Frog Addition to the Big Frog Wilderness includes
348 acres and is a mountain ridge containing the headwaters of
Payne Branch, a tributary of Tumbling Creek which is in turn a
tributary of the Ocoee River.
3) The Little Frog Mountain Additions, NW and NE, to the
Little Frog Mountain Wilderness include 996 acres including the
headwaters of Deweese Creek and portions of Dry Pond Lead
Trail.
4) The Sampson Mountain Addition to the Sampson Mountain
Wilderness includes 2,922 acres includes a mountain ridge and
the Hell Hollow Trail.
5) The Big Laurel Branch Addition to the Big Laurel
Wilderness includes 4,446 acres and portions of the Appalachian
National Scenic Trail.
6) Joyce Kilmer--Slickrock Addition to the Joyce Kilmer--
Slickrock Wilderness includes 1,836 acres along a mountain
ridge and a portion of the Stiffknee trail.
Wilderness management is an important part of the Forest Service
mission. There are currently 11 designated wildernesses covering 66,600
acres in the Cherokee National Forest. The areas proposed for
wilderness designation in S. 1090 were recommended for wilderness
status by the Forest Service in the development of its comprehensive
2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Cherokee
National Forest and have been managed as recommended wilderness since
that time.
Public involvement was an integral part of the Forest Plan revision
process. Individuals, groups, other agencies and various organizations
took advantage of the opportunities to provide input into the overall
management of the Forest, including areas proposed for wilderness
designation. The final Forest Plan reflects years of collaboration and
public participation. Congressional designation of these areas as
wilderness would be the culmination of this process.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Wyden. All right. Thank you, both.
Let me begin on this question of the ONC payments, you
know, Mr. Abbey. I mean, these are extraordinarily important to
rural Oregon. They got to counties that are very hard-hit; you
know, where unemployment is just in the stratosphere; they just
feel that, in this economy, they feel like they've been hit by
a wrecking ball.
I want to go through with you some of the errors that the
agency has made with respect to calculating these payments, and
try to figure out how this happened, and then what we're going
to do to turn it around.
Now, I learned recently that the Bureau of Land Management
revised its estimates of county payment to be made to Oregon's
ONC counties for Fiscal Year 2011. The revised estimate
revealed the significant error that the Bureau of Land
Management committed, with the result that these counties are
going to receive approximately $11.6 million less than they
originally planned and budgeted for. The amount of the reduced
payment varies by counties, but for some of the counties it
results in millions of dollars.
Now, my understanding, from a call which Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service employees did with my staff and
others in our congressional delegation, is that the Bureau of
Land Management learned of the errors in March, when the Forest
Service was revising its estimates for the 2011 payments. The
Forest Service then put their revised estimates for the Forest
Service lands on their website.
The Bureau of Land Management did not publically post those
numbers. Instead, the Bureau of Land Management waited until
June to let the counties know of this error. That was after the
counties had completed their budgets for the coming fiscal
year. So, the changed information means that they've now got to
go through a lengthy process to publically amend the budgets,
and the counties, in these tough times, are going to have to
scour their budgets again trying to figure out how to make
deeper cuts.
Now, I wrote to you on July 20th asking for these revised
estimates and an explanation about the calculations, and I
haven't gotten those revised estimates from the agency,
although the counties have shared with me the information that
they have with respect to what BLM provided to them. I also
didn't get a response to my letter.
Mr. Abbey, this is just completely unacceptable. This is so
important to my State. As you know, I wrote the county payments
legislation with Senator Craig, wrote the reauthorization. This
is a matter of great importance to Oregon.
Why don't we start by having you explain to me how the
error occurred, one; why the counties weren't notified until
months after the error was discovered; and why they didn't get
this information in a timely way, to factor it into their
budgets?
Mr. Abbey. Let me do my best--Senator Wyden, I'm fortunate
to work with 10,000 of the most dedicated public servants that
you'd find anywhere in all of government. Unfortunately,
mistakes sometimes are made.
In December 2010, when we were putting together the final
information for the President's--or, 2011, when we were putting
together the information for the President's 2012 budget
request, there was a mistake in the calculation for the ONC
county payments. That mistake was discovered in January, or,
February 2011, in time for us to correct that mistake and
incorporate the correct estimates as part of the President's
2012 budget request, which was published and disseminated to
members of the public in March 2011.
The mistake was compounded, unfortunately, by us not
communicating the corrected draft estimates to the counties.
Therefore, rather than reviewing the President's budget
request, they were, depended upon the information that had been
shared, you know, from the Bureau of Land Management from our
earlier calculations as they worked to pass a budget for their
counties for this coming fiscal year.
What I have done is to look into the situation to see how
the calculations were corrected; when they were corrected; why
the communications had not been, or, why the information had
not been communicated more timely to the ONC counties. I've got
the information. I will include all that information as part of
my response to your letter.
Senator Wyden. So, when will I get that?
Mr. Abbey. I just reviewed a draft of it yesterday
afternoon, so you should get it within the next couple of days.
Senator Wyden. OK. What is going to be done to try to help
the counties get through this? I mean, this is going to be
very, very hard on them right now in this kind of budget cycle.
What can you tell them about how they ought to get through
dealing with their budgets, given the fact that a mistake was
made by the Federal, you know, Government.
As you know this program exists because, you know, the
Federal Government owns most of our lands. I mean, this is not
like much of the United States, where you can sell a piece of
private property, and taxes are paid as a result of the sale,
and you can go about your business in providing, you know,
services. We are in this situation because the Federal
Government owns most of our land. So, we don't have many
options. What can you tell our counties they ought to do to try
to get through this budget season?
Mr. Abbey. I wish I had those answers as well. I do know
that the calculations are based upon law. The amount of money
that will be distributed to the ONC counties through the Bureau
of Land Management will be approximately 40 million, a little
over $40 million. As part of our letter, an attachment to our
response to your letter, would include what we estimate to be
the breakdown by county. Again, that information will be shared
with the county officials. To the degree that we can work with
them to alleviate or mitigate the effects of the lost revenue,
or, the last distribution, we will do so. But, I'm not sure we
have a lot of options.
Senator Wyden. I'm sure they're going to have some ideas
for how to mitigate some of the consequences here, because they
feel very strongly about this. To me, your point about the
dedication of the employees of the Bureau of Land Management is
well-taken. There's no question about that. We deal with them
constantly, and they do a very good job.
What I think has angered people in my part of the world is,
you all knew about it months ago; it wasn't communicated; we're
still trying to excavate the facts here at this subcommittee,
and, had it been communicated in a timely way, that would have
been the best way to kind of mitigate some of the consequences.
So, I'm looking forward to getting your letter. I'm sure that
the ONC counties will have some suggestions about how to
mitigate this, because this has really made for some very
difficult times--as if they didn't have already----
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Senator Wyden [continuing]. Enough to deal with in
communities that have unemployment, in our view, of well
upwards of 15 percent.
I'm going to have some other questions, but I'm over my
time. I want to let Senator Risch ask what he desires.
Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
Tom, a technical question--what time did that, what time of
day did that crown fire come of the top and take a run at
Alpine--do you, if you know?
Mr. Tidwell. I think it was early in the morning--Senator
Risch, I think it was early in the morning when it, the fire
came over the top toward Alpine.
Senator Risch. After sunrise, or----
Mr. Tidwell. It was, I think, right around--I could be
wrong on that. I probably need to get back to you. But it was
toward either, I think it was either late in the day, or
earlier. I, just the amount of smoke, it was so dark that it
didn't matter what time of day it was. But, I think it was--
I'll get back to you on that.
Senator Risch. Was it making its own weather by that time,
to----
Mr. Tidwell. It was. By now, this fire had been burning for
a few days. It was making big runs of thousands--tens of
thousands of acres each day. So, well, it's, the point on this
is that this was a fire that was burning as intense as probably
any fire that we've seen through timber. It wasn't a grass
fire. When it was, still had a full head of steam on it, these
treatments made the difference. It's one of the things that
we've learned, you know, for the treatments that we did around
these communities, that it helps us to understand the size of
the treatments that we do; the placement on the slope where we
need to put these treatments will really make a difference.
But, I'll tell you, this is an example that, if we do this
work, and we get out and do it before we have the fires, it
does make a difference. There's just--without any question.
Senator Risch. That brings me to my second point. I didn't
want to miss the opportunity to thank the Service for their
help, when I was Governor, writing our 9.2 million acre
roadless rule. As you know, this was a large concern of ours,
for those small communities that we had in roadless areas, and
the ability to be able to treat them. You and I are both well
aware of, as you just stated, the difference that it makes when
there has been a treatment.
We have two sections--Idaho, the State of Idaho, has two
sections of every township of every 36 square miles. I think
you and I have discussed at length what a difference the
management of our sections make, because we cut them regularly,
and, in a very managed fashion. But, I know, having been out on
the first, that the manager, fire managers are always happy
when they've got some of our State sections around, or a prior
fire, because the fire acts so much differently.
So, I want, again, I want to publicly express my
appreciation to the Service, to the Bush administration, and to
the Obama administration for their enthusiastic support and
help in our roadless rule. With that support we are, hopefully,
going to wind up with these kind of results when the inevitable
fire comes through, as it always does. So, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Risch.
Let's go to S. 1144, the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction
legislation.
Mr. Abbey, your testimony said that the bill will make the
statutory requirement that the Secretary provide Congress with
a recommendation on continuing royalty relief a moot issue.
That is not the intent of the sponsors. Over a year ago,
Senator Barrasso and three of my colleagues, Senator Enzi,
Senator Merkley, and Senator Feinstein and I wrote to the
Secretary asking that the Department expedite the soda ash
royalty study required by the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act
from 2006 so that Congress would have the information in a
timely way to gauge whether or not royalty relief ought to be
extended. I spoke to you earlier this year about the importance
of the report and the importance of getting an understanding of
the impact of foreign producers, particularly China, on the
market.
So, now we are just a few months from the October deadline,
and there is still not a report. My understanding is that if
Congress takes no further action, soda ash royalties would
automatically increase to the higher levels. So, here we're
dealing with a situation where the clock is ticking; there is
no report. Let's start with when the report is going to get
finished.
Mr. Abbey. Again, Mr. Chairman, we anticipate delivering a
report to Members of the Congress in September.
Senator Wyden. OK. Now, foreign, you know, competitors,
particularly, again, China, appear to be subsidizing their own
production of soda ash. In April 2009, China began to offer
soda ash exporters a 9 percent rebate on their value added
taxes subsidy, which has continued. At that time, a bipartisan
group of Senators and Representatives, including Senator
Barrasso, wrote to Ron Kirk, our U.S. Trade Representative,
asking him to take action on what we believe is a blatant
effort to subsidize Chinese soda ash exports.
What is the Department's estimate of the impact of foreign
subsidies on the ability of the soda ash industry--our soda ash
industry--to compete in the world market?
Mr. Abbey. Again, we'll provide some of that information in
the report. But in the meantime, I will say this--that the
domestic industry in the United States does have some
advantages over the synthetic soda ash that's being developed
in some of the foreign countries.
It is cheaper to use natural soda ash that comes mainly
from the public lands here in the United States and so,
therefore, it does make U.S. exports more competitive in the
world market. If you look at the current reductions in royalty,
no doubt that any reduction in costs, including the royalty
payments, does enhance our domestic industry's position in the
world market.
Senator Wyden. One last question on the soda ash issue. I
think it's certainly obvious to Americans now that moving
legislation through the Congress is not exactly a quick
process. We wanted to hold this hearing today on legislation
because the clock is running, and it was my judgment we just
couldn't wait any longer for the Department to come forward on
a recommendation on extending the royalty relief for soda
industry. I just felt we had to get going. We'd been trying for
some time to move the process along; we haven't been able to
get this report. It's my desire to keep working with you and
the Secretary, but I'm beginning to have questions about
whether this crucial work is going to get done before October.
So, it is also my understanding that the Mineral Leasing
Act provides the Secretary discretion to set the royalty rate
for soda ash at 2 percent, and that it gives the Secretary the
discretion to provide case-by-case reductions for the
royalties. My question, then, is, to wrap up, you know, this
matter--if the Department continues to take its time to get us
this report, and the Congress, you know, comes back, and it's
just not possible to get this legislation passed before
October, what administrative action could the Department take
to provide interim relief, given the importance of soda ash
production to our economy and jobs? This is a jobs issue.
Mr. Abbey. Yes.
Senator Wyden. We try on this subcommittee to constantly
look at energy as one of the key issues with respect to
employment. The energy sector feeds the jobs sector of this
county, and I outlined some of the provisions that we believe
gives the Secretary some discretion here. Tell us what
administration action the Department could take to provide, as
if suggested, at least tome interim, you know, relief in an
area that relates directly to employment of our constituents.
Mr. Abbey. Mr. Chairman, there are provisions in our
regulations that allow for leaseholders to apply for royalty
rate relief, that they must meet certain criteria. There's
three criteria that we use in reviewing such requests: First,
the criteria is in the interest of conservation. If there's a
reason why the industry decides to do something, or a
particular company decides to do something, to protect the
natural resources, and they come in to either shut down
operations during, for some wildlife reason, or some other
reasons, then certainly we will take that into consideration in
looking at a royalty relief.
A second criteria that we use is, we'll encourage the
greatest ultimate recovery of the mineral resource itself.
Then, the third criteria that we use to review these proposals
is, is it necessary to either promote the development of the
mineral resource or because the company cannot successfully
operate the lease under the existing terms.
So, those are the three criteria that we use to review the
requests that may come in from the industry when they're
seeking a royalty rate relief. We have granted such relief in
the past in some cases for coal and some of the other leases
that we have on public lands. We would certainly look at
requests from the soda ash industry.
Senator Wyden. So, I want to make sure, again, because this
has such impact on our economy. It is pivotal right now that we
move quickly. What else do they need to do to be able to get
this interim relief?
I think, the way I'd characterize it, there are jobs on the
line; you know, soda ash for my constituents is a pivotal
aspect of the economy, and we just do not want to lose more
employment. What else needs to be done?
Mr. Abbey. Again, as you indicated in your own comments,
the royalty relief is already set for 2 percent up until the
time that the 2006 Act expires, and that's in October. At that
point in time, prior to October, if this bill has not been
passed by Congress, then, certainly, the companies can apply
following the regulations that we have in place for royalty
relief. We would take their applications; we would take their
requests; we'll review it; and we'll make a decisions.
Senator Wyden. On the basis of what you know now, are they
positioned to be able to get administrative relief?
Mr. Abbey. Some companies may provide appropriate
justification that we would grant such a relief; others might
not. We would have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.
Senator Wyden. I'm going to have some other questions on
this. But, Senator Risch, I know, is very concerned about this
as well, and I want to let him ask his questions.
Senator Risch. Mr. Abbey, I hear what you're saying about
this list of standards that you have. Who put together that
list of standards?
Mr. Abbey. The Bureau of Land Management put it together
several years back. It's part of our regulations.
Senator Risch. Don't you think maybe you ought, it's time
to review that? It seems to me that's a pretty narrow list of
things, particularly in light of what Senator Wyden has said
here about how important it is in the economy and other things
like that. I mean, this issue is broader than just the narrow
scope, it seems to me, that those standards are, not the least
of which is the economy, and the position we're in in the
economy. You know, these resources belong to the people of the
United States; and the people of the United States need relief
right now. Since it belongs to them, we ought to see if we
can't use it to create jobs, as suggested by Senator Wyden.
So, I would urge--and I don't expect you to resolve this
right here, sitting here. But I'd urge you to think about this,
and see if there isn't some way you can review those standards,
and not simply accept the fact that these were written in stone
some many years ago, and that they're still there.
Mr. Abbey. OK.
Senator Wyden. We'll wrap this up with just one last point.
I mean, soda ash is an industrial mineral, and it's important
to folks in my State; it's important to folks in Wyoming; it's
important throughout the West. Because of its relationship with
our economy, we have got to work together on this, get it
right, and make sure we don't lose those jobs.
Can I leave this subject knowing that you're committed to
working with us and the Senators from Wyoming so we get this
done?
Mr. Abbey. You bet.
Senator Wyden. OK. One last question, if I might, on
Federal geothermal leasing issues.
Geothermal resources play an enormously important role in
providing energy for our country. Thermal--geothermal leases
generated more than 4,600 gigawatts of electrical power in
2010. The bill that I've introduced is intended to help expand
the development of proven geothermal resources by making small
tracts adjoining proven resources available on a non-
competitive basis.
Do you agree that this approach can help to accelerate the
development of these resources?
Mr. Abbey. I do. We think it's a good approach.
Senator Wyden. All right. One last question on this, with
respect to fair market value. I believe it's very important the
public receive fair market value for public resources. The bill
specifically requires the Department to obtain fair market
value for adjacent parcels, even if they're not competitively
leased. The bill also requires lessees to pay the higher annual
rental payments for the adjacent parcels as if they were
obtained competitively, though they're not.
Any suggestions or modifications on this, Mr. Abbey, that
could make sure that the Government, and, the fair compensation
issue are addressed?
Mr. Abbey. We do have a recommendation. Again, one of our
concerns with the bill as currently written, it sets a minimal
price on how much the Secretary may determine a fair market
value to be. We believe that this provision is not necessary,
because the Secretary of the Interior is also authorized under
the provisions of this bill to use the regulatory process to
actually establish fair market values for these leases. So, we
believe that certain provision, or, that specific provision is
not necessary.
Senator Wyden. All right.
Mr. Tidwell, you are, I think, liberated this afternoon, in
that I don't have any questions specifically of you. Is there
anything else that you'd like the subcommittee to know?
Mr. Tidwell. I appreciate the time to be here, and also,
not only to stress the importance on the recovery work, but
also, once again, to stress the importance on the restoration
work that we need to do before these fires occur. I just
appreciate the opportunity to, you know, share another photo.
We will submit the report that Senator Kyl referenced as part
of the record today. Thank you for your time.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Senator Risch, anything else?
Senator Risch. No. Thank you very much, but----
Senator Wyden. All right.
We thank you both, and you're excused.
Let's bring forward Mr. Edward Flynn, Division Manager of
FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and MR. Scott
Nichols, Manager of Lands and Permitting, U.S. Geothermal,
Inc., Boise, Idaho.
All right. We welcome both of you, Mr. Edward Flynn,
Division Manager, FMC, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Mr.
Scott Nichols. Good to see you again. We welcome your remarks,
gentlemen, and we'll make your prepared remarks part of the
hearing record in their entirety. If you could take 5 minutes
or so and summarize your principal concerns, that would be
helpful.
Mr. Flynn.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD FLYNN, PRESIDENT, FMC WYOMING, AND
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF THE AMERICAN NATURAL SODA ASH CORPORATION
Mr. Flynn. Chairman Wyden and Senator Risch, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on S. 1144, the Soda Ash Competition
Act. We appreciate Mr. Abbey's willingness to work on this
issue based on the fact that time is running out.
Soda ash production represents U.S. manufacturing at its
best--the United States' mineral resources mined and produced
by American workers to be sold throughout the United States and
across the globe.
During the period in which the soda ash royalty has been in
effect, we have experienced the greatest recession in most
individuals' lifetimes. Yet, Mr. Chairman, in spite of this
dramatic hit to the global economy, U.S. soda ash exports have
risen by more than 1 million tons. This was the intent of the
2006, why it was a success, and why we believe it should be
extended, as your legislation proposes.
We believe maintaining a current royalty of 2 percent will
increase exports of soda ash out of the United States, because
it will keep us competitive with Chinese synthetic soda ash
producers, our main rivals in the world market.
Your legislation can therefore help achieve three important
policy goals: First, it will help grow jobs; second, it will
help grow exports; and, third, we believe it will help grow
Treasury revenues. Mr. Chairman, let me elaborate on these.
Let me start first with jobs. The House first voted on a
royalty rate reduction for the soda ash industry H.R. 4625 on
July 19, 2004. As you know, the act didn't get passed until
2006, but we believed in the wisdom of Congress and reacted,
starting in 2004, which should be the comparison point. My
company began hiring and restarting a mothballed plant which
took almost 1 year to get back in shape, and we added about 100
direct jobs. I should point out that these are high-paying jobs
with an average salary of 85,000 per year with benefits, in
very rural communities. We estimate an additional 12,000 jobs
nationwide are directly dependent on our industry.
This is good industrial policy, and sound energy and
environmental policy. Synthetic soda ash produces greater
greenhouse gas emissions and uses more energy per ton that U.S.
soda ash.
Second, your legislation will help grow exports. Mr.
Chairman, our jobs growth in a natural soda ash industry is
fueled by exports. One of every two jobs in the U.S. soda ash
industry is dependent on exports. The U.S. soda ash industry is
supporting achievement of the President's National Export
Initiative. During this same period, we have seen a dramatic
contraction in the U.S. domestic soda ash demand due to the
housing bubble, a decline in auto demand, and a poor commercial
construction market which has not returned to previous levels.
So, domestic soda ash sales are down from when the act was
passed, and exports are up. It is clear to me that, without the
royalty increasing U.S. competitiveness, the industry and the
jobs dependent on our industry would have been decimated during
this recession.
Third, we believe you're legislation will lead to increased
Treasury revenues. The Department of the Interior
understandably argues that it will miss out on revenue by
maintaining the royalty rate at 2 percent. I believe that
statement is mathematically true. However, I think that is
looking at the tree instead of the forest, and let me tell you
why.
The industry has about 4 million tons of nameplate capacity
versus what we produced in 2010. The industry and economists we
talk to tell us that to produce those additional 4 million tons
will require over 850 direct new jobs and 3,900 indirect or
induced jobs. The Federal Treasury will take an additional
income tax revenue, FICA and Medicare tax revenue from the jobs
added. I did state before, these are high-paying jobs.
Additional diesel taxes for the fuel to get our one-mile-
long unit trains to ports like Portland, as well as the
increased royalty, even at 2 percent, from the additional 4
million tons shipped. I believe the Federal Treasury will
gain--let me repeat, gain--more than 17 million from additional
revenue above the 14 million CBO score for not raising the
royalty from 2 percent.
Looking at the forest and not the trees, and as a
businessman and a taxpayer, I believe this is a good deal--
adding jobs, and growing exports. The U.S. soda ash industry,
which is cleaner and greener than foreign competitors, has
proven, since the 2 percent royalty has been in place, a steady
increase in export growth will occur due to the increased
competitiveness of the U.S. natural soda ash industry.
The wisdom of Congress to make the U.S. soda ash industry
more competitive to spur export growth has been a success. I
ask you to let it continue.
Thank you for this opportunity. I would welcome any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Flynn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward Flynn, President, FMC Wyoming, and
Chairman, Board of the American Natural Soda Ash Corporation, on S.
1144
introduction
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
Committee, we thank you for the opportunity to testify on S 1144, the
Soda Ash Competition Act. The U.S. soda ash industry is an American
success story. American natural soda ash is produced largely in
Wyoming, and also in California. Soda ash exports are positively
contributing nearly one billion dollars annually to our balance of
trade and some 3,000 direct jobs. Your legislation, by maintaining the
current royalty rate for soda ash produced on federal lands at two
percent, will allow this important domestic industry to continue to
steadily grow both exports and therefore U.S. jobs. It is precisely the
sort of growth that is required if we are to realize the goals
contained in President Obama's National Export Initiative.
As recently as June of this year FMC, which is the largest of the
four Wyoming producers, announced the addition of significantly
expanded capacity and 100 new jobs to meet growing export demands. This
was our way of expressing confidence that Congress will see fit to
continue its current royalty rate that encourages this jobs and export
growth into the foreseeable future. The predictability offered by
passage of your legislation that extends the current royalty two
percent rate will enable the American natural soda ash industry to
invest in further expansion that create more manufacturing jobs and
more shipments from Portland Oregon and Port Arthur Texas to important
new Asian and Latin American markets. Mr. Chairman, though there is no
expiration date in the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006, some
will interpret it to expire on October 12 of this year. For this reason
we urge prompt enactment of your legislation, S. 1144.
rationale for the soda ash royalty reduction act of 2006
We believe it is important for members of the Committee to know
that our domestic American natural soda ash industry continues to face
substantially the same international pressure from off shore producers
that led to enactment of the original Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of
2006. Let me briefly review, therefore, what prompted Congress to take
this important action in the first place.
In the fifteen years between 1982 and 1997, our domestic soda ash
industry enjoyed a steady and significant growth in exports. But after
1997 export growth slowed dramatically. By 2003 our U.S. exports were
only 4% above their 1997 levels. This rapid decline in export growth
resulted from a sudden and dramatic change in global competition. More
significantly, in the brief span of the decade of the 1990's, China
went from importing over one million tons of soda ash per year of soda
ash a year to becoming a two million ton net exporter. By 2000 China
had become the world's largest producer of soda ash, though hardly it's
most efficient. A growing number of state owned Chinese producers
making soda ash from a more energy intensive and more greenhouse gas
generating synthetic process flooded international markets with low
cost material aided by an export VAT rebate incentive. While these
exports had a larger carbon footprint they were hurting our cleaner,
more efficient American natural soda ash producers in growing markets
particularly those in Asia and South America.
Faced with this state owned competition, we identified innovative
ways to reduce spiraling structural costs, and the increasing prices we
paid for energy and transportation. However, as our export growth
slowed in the early part of the last decade we also had to reduce
employment. This was not a preferred option. In this context of slowing
exports and recurring restructuring initiatives early, in 2004 we asked
the Congress to consider that the royalty we pay on each ton of soda
ash be assessed at two percent as called for in the Minerals Leasing
Act. We testified then that our low cost natural soda ash production
process when allowed to compete fairly on a level playing field can
beat any other producer in the world. In sum, then as now, if
conditions are equal, we know we can compete with any other global
producer. We can mine the vast underground trona ore reserves in
Wyoming, bring this raw material above ground to be processed into soda
ash, ship it by rail to Portland and Port Arthur, and deliver to any
Asian port and effectively compete for our fair share of global
business against the Chinese.
results of the current rate
Mr. Chairman we are pleased to report that as a result of the
action Congress took in 2006, our industry has experienced sustained
growth driven by our ability to again grow exports. Despite a global
recession and a continuing slow recovery, the American Natural Soda Ash
industry added almost 100 new jobs in 2010 and expects to add 100 more
in the next two years. To put this in perspective, one out of every two
jobs in our U.S. soda ash industry is now the direct result of exports.
During the period from 2006 to 2010, while our domestic volume declined
from 6.1 million to 5.8 million tons, our export volume grew from 4.8
million to almost 6 million tons.
Our global competitiveness is a direct result of our ability to
reinvest in our business made possible by the reduced royalty rate.
Since passage of the act in 2006 we have reinvested in our business at
rates well above those before its passage. In 2005, the year before the
royalty was enacted the US soda ash industry spent some $88 million
dollars in capital improvements. In 2006, the year after passage, and
with the predictability of a stable two percent royalty, the US soda
ash industry nearly doubled that rate of investment in our future
spending $158 million dollars in expanded capacity and improvements.
Importantly, we believe there can be additional growth on the
horizon with predictability in government policies that encourage
investment for exports . The U.S. nameplate annual capacity for soda
ash is estimated by USGS to be 15.6 million tons. The actual 2010
production was 11.7 million tons. We believe that with the current
combination of federal lands and trade policies in place, we can
continue this steady growth toward realizing nameplate capacity adding
almost 4 million new tons of production over the next decade if not
sooner. We estimate this growth in capacity could mean some 850 new
jobs in Wyoming alone. My company's recent announcement means we are
already contributing 500,000 more tons of annual capacity and 100 more
jobs toward these goals.
This steady industry expansion over the next decade we estimate
could ultimately result in some $27 million dollars annually in
additional new income tax revenues (at current rates) from both direct
and indirect jobs attributable to added employment. There are other
benefits to the Treasury as well from this steady expansion realized
from the increase in other revenue streams from increasing property,
sales, and fuel taxes. Thus while some may argue the current royalty
has resulted in a $5 million loss to the Treasury between the rates we
paid in 2005 (the year before the current royalty took effect) and
2010, we would argue that the growth of jobs and exports and therefore
additional tax revenues more than compensates for any reduced royalty
revenue. We therefore ask is it worth it to take a $5 million risk by
raising the royalty we pay, when the impact on jobs creation and export
growth could return us to pre 2006 levels?
conclusion
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we strongly believe that enactment
of your bipartisan legislation is critical to realizing the steady
growth toward the full capacity of this important U.S. industry. We
possess vast reserves of a raw material that allow the U.S. to produce
soda ash naturally, not synthetically, and therefore offer us
significant cost and environmental advantages when allowed to compete
on a level global playing field. We have a committed work force
including steelworkers and longshoreman that strive to maintain this
low cost advantage by continually improving already safe and efficient
operations. Finally, we have in place supportive trade and lands
policies that seek to reduce the barriers to our international
competitiveness and the impacts of state sponsored production. In
short, Mr. Chairman, we have a formula for success that is working. The
current royalty is an important component of that success. Why risk
changing a formula that works? Your legislation recognizes the
importance of continuing policies that work to grow jobs and exports.
We should not risk reducing our competitiveness in a global business we
should continue to lead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to
provide our views in support of S 1144.
Senator Wyden. We'll have some in a moment.
We thank you, Mr. Flynn, and know that you all have been
working closely with us. We appreciate it.
Mr. Nichols, welcome.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT NICHOLS, U.S. GEOTHERMAL, INC.
Mr. Nichols. Chairman Wyden, Senator Risch, I want to thank
you for being here today--Chairman Wyden, Senator Risch. I
apologize.
My name is Scott Nichols. I'm here representing U.S.
Geothermal. I've been the Lands and Permitting Manager with the
company now for the last three and a half years.
U.S. Geothermal is a publicly traded company out of Boise,
Idaho. We have projects in Nevada, Oregon, and in southeast
Idaho. We explore, develop and operate utility-scale geothermal
power plants. We're also a member of the Geothermal Energy
Association on the, and on the Board of Directors.
I'm glad to hear that the Geothermal Energy Association has
provided under separate cover written testimony supporting S.
1149.
U.S. Geothermal strongly supports this bill. We, this bill
was, actually, the brainchild of our company a number of years
ago. S. 1149 simply allows a developer like us who's taken--or
anybody else--who's taken the high risk of exploration and
development, and invested significant capital in that
discovery, that commercial geothermal resource, the ability to
add up to 640 acres of critical adjoining lands--just up to 640
acres of critical adjoining lands.
The bill addresses a problem that was not anticipated under
the Energy Policy Act of 2005--specifically, numerous
geothermal resources throughout the West are located on lands
that are mixed ownership--State, private and Federal. This bill
allows us to secure those lands without going out for lease.
The geothermal provisions of the Energy Policy Act were
intended to support an increased production of geothermal
energy in the United States. Originally, those lands were
available over the counter, and the auction system was mandated
under the Energy Policy Act. The first geothermal auctions
occurred in 2007.
Under the current leasing provisions, BLM is also allowed
to issue non-competitive leases. There are three circumstances
currently where the Energy Policy Act allows the BLM to issue
these leases. They are, first, under a mining claimant who has
a valid operation; second would be for the direct use of that
heat in the production of, for example, a, well, direct use
heat, for greenhouses, for example; last would be for parcels
that have gone unleased.
Similar to mining, S. 1149 would create a fourth category
of non-competitive lease whereby the BLM would have authority
to issue non-competitive geothermal leases, again, for up to
640 acres where we have discovered adjoining--discover
resources on adjoining State, private or Federal lands.
I think it's also important to note that, as we talk here
today, the State of Idaho is considering geothermal legislation
that also has this very similar language. The State of Idaho is
intending and will, we anticipate, allow the adjoining of
State, adjacent State lands if there's an existing Federal
lease in play.
The change provides the following benefits: First, it
allows us, the developers that have invested substantial
capital and made high-risk investments to secure a documented
geothermal discovery; second, it allows the development of
geothermal resources for the creation of new jobs in rural
areas, it allows us to finance projects, it increases short-
term bonuses to the Bureau of Land Management and our Treasury,
and it ensures long-term production of geothermal royalties;
finally, S. 1149 would provide a more efficient and optimal
development of geothermal resources. It allows a developer to
bring the resources to a single land package.
I want to reiterate--there are many fragmented land parcels
in the West, and there simply isn't the incentive to bring
those parcels to market when we can't assure ourselves that we
can secure those additional resources that may be critical to
the development of that project.
We believe that it's appropriate for all leases issued
under the non-competitive categories to pay a filing and bonus
fees that are fair market value. We agree with the Secretary's
ability under this legislation to establish that fair market
value. We believe that that should be an administrative
decision and an administrative process, and that we ought to
move forward in that role as quickly as possible with the BLM.
In summary, I'd like to say that S. 1149 has been carefully
crafted over the last 3 years. It is narrowly focused so that
when a commercial geothermal resource is identified, it can be
brought to market in a timely, effective manner. It can assure
us--it allows us a better assurance of financing.
The United States leads the world in geothermal energy
production. This is clean, renewable baseload power. We would
like to see us in the West retain that position.
I want to thank you for considering these comments, and I'd
like to stand for any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nichols follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Nichols, U.S. Geothermal, Inc., on S. 1149
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Scott
Nichols and I am here today representing U.S. Geothermal Inc. U.S.
Geothermal is a publicly traded company that explores for, develops,
builds and operates utility scale geothermal power plants. We are a
member of the board of directors of the Geothermal Energy Association,
which is a trade association composed of U.S. companies who support the
expanded use of geothermal energy and are developing geothermal
resources worldwide for electrical power generation and direct-heat
uses. The membership of the Geothermal Energy Association includes
large utilities and Independent Power Producers, equipment suppliers,
drilling companies, technical and financial service providers, in
addition to developers like U.S. Geothermal. These companies are
primarily focused on the exploration, development and generation of
clean, base load electricity from our country's great geothermal
resource base.
U.S. Geothermal and the Geothermal Energy Association strongly
support Senate Bill 1149, the Geothermal Production Expansion Act of
2011. Very simply, Senate Bill 1149 allows a developer that has taken
the high risk of exploration and invested significant capital in the
discovery of a commercial geothermal resource, the ability to add up to
640 acres of critical adjoining federal resource so a power plant can
be financed and built without exposing the project to the high cost of
delay and speculation. We believe S. 1149 is an important, small policy
adjustment to the geothermal leasing process that will promote the
development of mixed ownership properties, help accelerate the
development of our geothermal resources, create new jobs, and provide
additional revenue for the United States treasury.
S. 1149 addresses a vexing problem as the private sector ramps up
to develop this proven, renewable resource. A large portion of the
potential geothermal resources in the United States are located on
federally administered lands in the West. Oftentimes these federal
resources are mixed with private and state land, which reduces a
developer's interest in leasing and working to develop a geothermal
resource.
The geothermal provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were
intended to support and increase the production of geothermal energy in
the United States. A provision of EPACT 2005 mandated a change in how
geothermal leases are issued--from an open leasing system to an auction
based system. These changes were implemented with the first auction of
geothermal leases in 2007.
The changes to the geothermal steam act made by the Energy Policy
ACT 2005 have been beneficial for both the federal government and the
geothermal industry. While the leasing provisions of EPACT 2005 have
allowed a significant acreage of federal lands to be leased, a
challenge was created by the new leasing rules when there are
intermixed lands (public, private and state). This issue was first
brought to light during the public forums held to discuss the proposed
rules issued by the BLM in July 2006, but there is no specific
provision in the statue that allowed for an exception to address the
circumstances of intermixed land. Senate Bill 1149 will correct that
oversight.
Under the current leasing provisions, the BLM is allowed to issue
non-competitive leases under three specific circumstances; leases to
mining claim holders that have a valid operating plan, direct use
leases, and leases on parcels that do not sell at a competitive
auction. The mining claim category is very similar to the situation
addressed by the proposed language in S. 1149 as it allows a mining
developer that already has a mineral discovery and has invested a
significant amount of capital to secure the property.
S. 1149 would create a fourth category of non-competitive lease
whereby the BLM would have the authority to issue a non-competitive
geothermal lease for 640 acres or less of federal lands that adjoin a
commercial geothermal discovery, but only if those federal lands are
not already leased or nominated for lease under the auction system. The
applicant must also demonstrate conclusively that the commercial
geothermal discovery extends on to the adjoining federal lands. This
bill provides a very specific, laser focused requirement for a
geothermal developer to qualify for this proposed non-competitive
lease.
This change would provide the following benefits:
Developers that have invested substantial capital and made
high risk investments would be allowed to secure a documented
discovery.
Development of the geothermal resource would accelerate the
creation of jobs.
The financing capabilities of geothermal projects would
increase.
All non-competitive leaseholders would be required to pay a
market average ``bonus'' fee and thereby increase the short
term fees paid to the federal government.
Increased development will provide higher revenue to the
federal government with the payment of production royalties
over decades.
In addition, Senate Bill 1149 would provide for a more efficient
and optimal development of a geothermal resource since it allows a
developer to bring the resource in to a single land package. Fragmented
ownership adds significant additional time and cost to the development
of a geothermal project, can reduce overall power generation from a
geothermal resource, and in some instances may stop development
altogether.
We believe that it is appropriate for all leases issued under all
of the non-competitive categories to pay a filing or bonus fee set at
the fair market value per acre as determined by the Secretary of
Interior. If a fair market value isn't determined by the Secretary,
then a fee equal to four times the median price paid at auction during
the preceding year or $50 per acre is due. This fee is fair and
provides increased funding for the BLM leasing program. Recipients of
non-competitive leases should be required to pay for the privilege of
being granted a non-competitive lease.
While the early years of geothermal leasing caused much excitement
and some speculators paid extremely high bonus bid amounts for tracts
of land, experienced developers know that there is an economic limit to
the amount of capital that can be recovered when you are selling
electricity into a regulated market.
S. 1149 has been carefully vetted over the past 3 years, and is
narrowly focused to provide a specific remedy for intermixed lands, so
that when a commercial geothermal resource has been identified, it can
be developed in a timely, cost effective manner. The United States
leads the world in clean, base load power generation from geothermal
resources, and we would like to see us retain that preeminent position.
Thank you for considering our comments on this important issue to the
geothermal industry. I am happy to respond to any questions.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. I appreciated your
coming to my town hall meeting as well in Ontario and----
Mr. Nichols. Thank you
Senator Wyden [continuing]. I just appreciate it. I always
like it when folks from Idaho come over and spend a lot of
money in Oregon. We think that's generally a good, good policy.
Mr. Nichols. We're happy to be there. We intend to be there
for many years.
Senator Risch. That door swings both ways.
Senator Wyden. It does, indeed. Mr. Flynn, a question for
your first with respect to competitiveness. I think you know I
also chair the Senate Finance Subcommittee on International
Trade. I go into all of these debates saying expanded trade is
good for us in this country, we want to promote it in every way
possible; but we also want to stand up for our folks and make
sure that they're treated fairly. Certainly, there are number
of markets where we have seen unfair interference by foreign
governments to gain a competitive edge.
In the case of your industry, I think it's fair to say the
Chinese have flip-flopped. You know, they have flip-flopped,
for, example, on whether or not they're going to provide a
rebate on the VAT tax to synthetic soda ash exporters.
Tell me a little bit about the impact on foreign
competition in your industry, and how important this question
of competitiveness is for your company.
Mr. Flynn. As I said in my verbal testimony, one of every
two jobs in the U.S. soda ash industry, and the jobs that are
supported by the soda ash industry--those that, railroad
workers or port workers--depends on exports. We compete
against, in many cases--in particular, let's talk about China,
where over 60 percent of the soda ash competitors are State-
owned. So, what that means is they don't have to make a profit.
When the global economic crisis happened, we saw them
selling below their cash cost--in fact, in some cases, below
their variable cash cost, which meant they weren't making any
money, just to grab market share away from the United States.
They grabbed significant market share away from the United
States during that period of time. One hundred percent of the
soda ash that is exported from China does get the VAT rebate
which was reinstated in 2009, which lowers their costs.
Senator Wyden. What would be the impact on your industry
and these jobs that I've been referring to this afternoon if
you have an abrupt, you know, change of policy? As you know,
there is this understanding that the current 2 percent cap on
soda ash royalties expires in the middle of October, October
12th of this year. I think it would be helpful to know what the
consequences to you all would be about an approach that
involved, just, an abrupt change right now.
Mr. Flynn. I think the, my own belief, and I could speak
for my company and then project what I think would happen in
the industry. I think we're looking at, we believe that we can
remain competitive against these foreign competitors, and that
we can continue to grow exports.
In the case of FMC, we have begun work--our Board of
Directors has authorized spending $5 million on pre-engineering
for an expansion. There's a set of assumptions that go into
finally going to the Board of Directors about the large amount
of money to do the full expansion. I think--and that assumption
is that the 2 percent royalty would stay in place.
I think that would cause, in many cases, both FMC and other
companies, to say, I'm not sure we want to do that expansion.
We might put that investment in some other business line, or
some other country.
Senator Wyden. So, if it expires, it has direct effects on
possible investments that would translate to more jobs in this
area?
Mr. Flynn. That is correct.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Mr. Flynn. I would just relate it to when the economic
crisis happened, and the total output of soda ash of the United
States dropped dramatically, there were jobs lost directly in
the industry, and also that rippled through the economy,
whether it was on a railroad or in the ports of Portland, Port
Arthur, Texas. It ripples its way all the way through the
economy.
Senator Wyden. I appreciate your laying that out for us.
Because one aspect of our duties on the Finance subcommittee,
the Trade subcommittee, is to promote policies that ensure
American competitiveness. It's in the title of the
subcommittee. My sense is, between this subcommittee and that
one, we have some ideal ways to do it. I appreciate your laying
out the consequences of what happens if the current 2 percent,
you know, cap expires, because people need to know this will
affect real investments--investments, as you characterize your
Board of Directors is looking at that would translate into more
jobs. I appreciate that.
Mr. Nichols, a question for you. We also think geothermal
power is something that has a lot of economic potential. I
think I mentioned to you Klamath Falls and some of the exciting
work that's being done there. There, college, you know, for
example, the only college in the world that is heated
exclusively with geothermal. So, Oregon feels very strongly
about the prospects of geothermal, and we're very encouraged by
your project.
It's my understanding that, as a project developer, that
allowing you all to get adjacent land would offer several
benefits that assist the Bureau of Land Management and the
Government. First, your project output is going to increase,
and you're going to be paying larger royalties over the long
term. Second, the adjacent land, which is now, as I understand
it, not going to be developed, would be developed, so there
would be an additional lease payment at fair market value, and
additional rental payments.
So, all of these revenues would go to the Treasury. They're
not going there now. That would be direct benefits, certainly,
that would kick in as the project got off the ground. Is that
correct?
Mr. Nichols. Chairman Wyden, Senator Risch, that's correct.
This bill really addresses, like we said, not only allows,
or, promotes--promotes new development. The bottom line is that
there, like I said, there are mixed ownership properties, maybe
even some existing Federal lease properties, where a developer
is unwilling to expend large, large sums of money necessary for
the geothermal evaluation of an individual site. AIt just is
very difficult, as Mr. Flynn commented about his investment
decisions in terms of royalty, it's very difficult for a
geothermal power company, a producer, to make a decision to
expend those millions of dollars when we can't be assured that,
if that resource extends off the property we currently control,
that we can't acquire that resource.
We are not asking for a handout, and we believe we should
pay fair market value and be treated just the same as any other
over-the-counter direct lessee. But, the ability that we have
to know that that land is available is a key component of our
decision process to invest those dollars.
Senator Wyden. I'm over my time. I want to ask you one last
question, and then let my friend Senator Risch ask you
questions for an hour or two, or whatever he desire.
Here's my question for you with respect to the issue of the
adjacent, you know, parcels, Mr. Nichols. One of the reasons
for the legislation is, we've come to feel that it will help
avoid the gridlock that can come from speculation on adjacent
parcels of land once a developer has staked a geothermal claim.
Could you explain to us why a company such as yours should
not leave the process for leasing as it is and let BLM allow
competitors to have access to the land?
Mr. Nichols. Chairman Wyden, the, you know, it's a very
interesting scenario. There are some prospects out there that
will be competitively bid. Other prospects that are, I would
say, yet undiscovered, those are the ones that we're trying to
bring to market; or, adjacent lands, like you say, that are key
critical aspects.
What happens is, although speculation is a normal part of
our business life--we do it every day in the markets, the
geothermal industry--I, on the plane trip here--I liken the
original BLM offerings in geothermal leasing to an IPO. The
excitement was boundless. Everybody was over the top. That,
however, led to a realization that the industry, with these
very small long-term revenues--nobody wants to pay more than a
few cents per kilowatt for their power. Even we here today
don't want to pay any more than we have to for power. That
speculation in this market can drive those costs beyond the
realm of our ability to develop them.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Mr. Nichols. That's why this is important.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to brag a little bit about Idaho's geothermal.
Senator Wyden. Good.
Senator Risch. Our State Capitol is heated with geothermal
water, as are a lot of the homes in downtown Boise. We have a
lot of geothermal.
Mr. Nichols' company runs what I would call as close to a
perpetual motion machine as I've ever seen, where they take hot
water out of the ground, and use, turn a turbine, and put it
back in the ground and heat it up, and it comes back up again.
So, it's kind of an amazing thing.
Having said that, I think virtually everyone understands
what a high-risk business it is. The entrepreneurs and the free
market people that go out there are to be commended, that look
for this.
We, I think, virtually everyone here wants to help every
way we can with this particular method of generating
electricity, heat, and what have you.
One thing you can be thankful for, Mr. Nichols, is, it
doesn't seem that your industry is as politically correct as
wind and solar, and for that matter, the ethanol thing that
turned this institution on its head some years back. Because
the minute the Congress discovers that, they want to get their
hands on it, and they want to help you so much that they will
cause all kinds of turmoil for you, that we're seeing now in
those other more politically correct forms of generating
energy. So, you can be thankful for that.
But, thank you for what you do. You're a great addition to
Idaho, and we're glad to have you. I think most of us
understand, I think, particularly those that have visited
geothermal sites understand how necessary it is that, if you're
going to spend the money and do this high-risk exploration, you
need to have the benefits of it, not only on the particular
section that you're on, but on the adjacent sections, too. So,
I think all of us are committed to seeing if we can't find a
way to help you.
Mr. Nichols. Thank you.
Senator Risch. Mr. Flynn, likewise, we're certainly glad to
have your company in Idaho. It's a good corporate citizen, and
we appreciate you being there.
Your comments about what's going to happen on October the
12th are well taken. We hear this, Senator Wyden and I hear
this every day, about certainty. Business can thrive if you
have certainty. There is almost nothing that is more
destructive to the stock market, to the investors, to the free
market system, than uncertainty. So, I think we're all
committed to try to do something about this October 12th date.
The Congress, as you know, isn't geared sometimes to do these
kinds of things. But I think Senator Wyden and I can commit
that we'll do everything we can to help you out and keep this
going, because jobs right now is where it's at. American people
are hurting. We need these jobs. So, thank you for what you're
doing.
Thank both of you for being----
Mr. Flynn. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Risch [continuing]. Good corporate citizens of
Idaho.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank you, Senator Risch. I think you
really summed it up, you know, well. If you just look at the
events of the last, you know, week or so, we've had a
bipartisan effort on the soda ash question, and important
industry, you know, mineral; on geothermal, another bipartisan
effort with our colleagues; we've already moved the Hydropower
Improvement Act in committee. So, I think you sum it up very
well.
This is about jobs. There can be plenty other issues.
Mr. Flynn, as you know, Senator Coats and I have introduced
the first bipartisan tax reform bill in a quarter century.
We're hoping to get moving as part of the super-committee
process that will begin in the fall.
But, we'll leave today with our thanks to both of you for
being here. Both of you represent sectors, as I mentioned, that
are extremely important to the Oregon economy, extremely
important to Westerners, like Senator Risch, and we'll be
following up with you. We're going to get these issues
addressed and, particularly, ensure the jobs that are so
important to the West and our country.
With that, we'll excuse you. I think you're the last
witnesses in the Senate before the August break. At least----
Mr. Flynn. Appreciate that.
Senator Wyden [continuing]. I'm advised that. So, you're
liberated, and we thank you.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Robert Abbey to Questions From Senator Murkowski
s. 1024
Question 1. Given the border situation in Arizona, Texas, New
Mexico and California and the refuge that additional Wilderness
designations might afford those that seek out remote places to traffic
in illegal drugs and illegal immigration activities; do you think it
would be better to pull the boundaries of the proposed wilderness back
even further from the Mexico border than has been proposed by S. 1024?
Answer. No, the Administration supports the boundaries proposed in
S. 1024. As we noted in our testimony, a number of improvements have
been made to the bill in order to accommodate law enforcement needs
including releasing additional lands near the border with Mexico, and
special provisions to allow law enforcement to install communications
and surveillance facilities on a wide area of land as may be needed.
s. 1149
Lease payments
I have two questions on the geothermal bill. Currently in Nevada,
the state that has had the most leasing of federal lands for geothermal
activities, the average payment per acre is roughly $12 and that
average apparently is lower for surrounding states in the Lower 48.
Question 1. To my knowledge there has been no leases sought on
federal lands in my home State of Alaska, so there is no data for what
a relevant lease amount may be in Alaska. My question is, is the
requirement that a potential leasee pay four times the amount of the
existing lease, or a minimum of $50 per acre for a neighboring site the
correct amount?
Answer. The BLM is also concerned about the provision of S. 1149
that set a minimum price on how the Secretary may determine the fair
market value for a non-competitive geothermal lease on adjoining lands,
in part because lease values vary from site to site and across states
and regions. The establishment of a minimum price as defined by S. 1149
would not account for these local valuation factors. The BLM instead
supports the requirement that regulations be promulgated to establish
procedures for determining the fair market value of leases on adjoining
lands.
Question 2. While we don't want to give anyone too good of a lease
deal for a non-competitive lease extension, still if this bill is going
to increase geothermal energy production, the lease can't be too high
as to be non-competitive on an economic basis. Any view on the lease
terms built into the bill and whether they walk that fine line
appropriately?
Answer. The BLM supports the requirement that regulations be
prepared to determine the appropriate fair market value for non-
competitive leases on adjoining lands. Through the regulatory process,
DOI can appropriately consider the economic value and site specific
factors that may influence the fair market value of a lease.
s. 1144
Question 1. If this bill is not passed before October, what are the
Administrative options that the Secretary of Interior will have to
provide this important industry an extension of the royalty relief?
Answer. The current regulations enable royalty reduction on a case-
by-case basis, subject to the leaseholder's presentation of information
demonstrating that he meets the criteria of the currently applicable
regulations as contained at 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3513. Under that Subpart,
leaseholders may apply for a royalty rate relief if they meet certain
criteria. Under 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3513.12, the BLM ``will consider if
approval:
(a) is in the interest of conservation;
(b) will encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of the
resource; and
(c) is necessary either to promote development of the mineral
resources or because you cannot successfully operate the lease
under existing terms.''
The BLM has processed royalty rate reduction applications from many
solid mineral lessees. We analyze operational and financial information
submitted by the operator and determine if a royalty rate reduction is
justified, based on the above-described criteria.
The BLM has established Royalty Rate Reduction Guidelines under
which applications may be processed under five categories; (1) Expanded
Recovery, (2) Extension of Mine Life, (3) Financial Test--Unsuccessful
Operations, (4) Financial Test--Expanded Recovery / Extension of Mine
Life, and (5) Regional. These guidelines are subject to, and must be
implemented consistent with, the provisions of the applicable
regulations. Administratively complete applications containing the
information and documentation required by 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3513.15 to
justify the rate reduction request must be received from the lessee and
evaluated by BLM on a lease-by lease basis. Following such submission,
if BLM determines that the criteria of the applicable regulation, 43
C.F.R. Sec. 3513.12, have been met, royalty rate reductions may be
granted on a lease-by-lease basis. Each such decision would be
dependent upon the particular facts presented in each case and thus,
there is no guarantee that every applicant will receive the requested
reduction.
As noted in the letter accompanying the report to Congress, the BLM
is willing to entertain ``bundled'' requests for royalty relief when
similarly situated leaseholders jointly submit information that meets
the regulatory tests for which royalty reduction is sought.
The minimum royalty rate for federal sodium leases is 2%, as set by
the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act. Most federal sodium leases in Wyoming
were initially issued with a royalty rate of 5%. In the early 1990s,
BLM began a process of raising the federal rate to match the 8% local
private lease royalty rate. In 1996, the decision was reached to issue
any new federal leases at 8%, and renew existing leases at 6%. There
are currently eight sodium leases in Wyoming at 8%, 49 leases at 6%,
and four leases at 5%.
Question 2. At this point, lacking an extension, what will the
Bureau of Land Management recommend to the Secretary of dropping the
Soda Ash Royalty back down to the 2 percent range?
Answer. As previously noted, the current regulations enable royalty
reduction on a case-by-case basis, subject to the leaseholder's
presentation of information demonstrating that he meets the criteria of
the currently applicable regulations as contained at 43 C.F.R. Subpart
3513. DOI delivered a report to Congress on September 30, 2011, on the
Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2006. The report found that ``the Act
resulted in substantial unrealized royalty revenues to the Federal
Government and the states which exceeded Congressional estimates. The
royalty rate reduction does not appear to have contributed in a
significant way to the creation of new jobs within the industry, to
increased exports, or to a notable increase in capital expenditures to
enhance production. In addition, the royalty rate reduction appears to
have influenced a shift of production away from state leases and
private lands and onto Federal leases.'' As noted in the letter
accompanying the report to Congress, the BLM is willing to entertain
``bundled'' requests for royalty relief when similarly situated
leaseholders jointly submit information that meets the regulatory tests
for which royalty reduction is sought.
Responses of Robert Abbey to Questions From Senator Heller
s. 1024
Question 1. Under BLM's regulations for managing Wilderness areas,
are Border Patrol and law enforcement officials allowed to patrol, in
routine circumstances, Wilderness areas with mechanized vehicles? On
bicycle?
Answer. BLM regulations for managing Wilderness areas (43CFR 6303)
specify that BLM may authorize officers, employees, agencies, or agents
of Federal, State, and local governments to occupy and use wilderness
areas to carry out the purposes of the Wilderness Act or other Federal
statutes. Unless another Federal statute required use of motorized and
mechanized vehicles, including bicycles, routine patrols using such
methods would not be permitted by these agencies. Routine patrols could
be conducted by foot or horseback, or by air. However, under emergency
conditions, such as law enforcement emergencies, motorized and
mechanized vehicles may be used.
Question 2. In September of 2010 there were reports by news outlets
in New Mexico that BLM was blocking sites favored by Border Patrol for
placing Forward Operating Bases (FOB) in areas highly trafficked by
drug traffickers and human smugglers. Border Patrol reportedly had to
settle for a location 20 miles from the border and from the area they
originally wanted the FOB placed. Has BLM in New Mexico denied requests
for FOB to be placed in areas because of environmental or preservation
laws? Has BLM allowed FOBs to be placed in Wilderness areas in New
Mexico or elsewhere?
Answer. While I am unfamiliar with the news story, BLM in New
Mexico works closely with law enforcement on requests for placement of
FOBs on public lands. No requests have been denied.
Question 3. In a CRS report released in October of 2010, Border
Patrol officials in New Mexico stated it may take up to 6 months or
more to obtain permission from federal land managers to simply maintain
roads within federal lands. Another account in the report said it took
8 months for federal land managers to do the environmental and
historical preservation work that they claimed had to be done before a
permit could be issued to improve a road so Border Patrol could move an
underground sensor. During this eight month delay Border Patrol could
not patrol this area known to be highly trafficked by ``illegal
aliens''. Given the documented evidence that exists of the obstructions
that Border Patrol faces from federal land management agencies and
environmental and historical preservation laws in areas in southern New
Mexico, wouldn't the highly restrictive land use designations in S.
1024 only exacerbate the problem?
Answer. The BLM Las Cruces District and the El Paso Sector Border
Patrol signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in January 2007 that
identified all of the dirt roads within the El Paso Sector that the
Border Patrol needed to maintain. This MOU gives them the authority to
maintain and improve these roads as needed and has expedited our
ability to respond to Border Patrol requests. The Border Patrol has
acquired maintenance responsibilities for a number of access roads that
were previously two-track dirt roads and have now been improved by the
Border Patrol to be fully passable. The BLM continues to work closely
with the Border Patrol to identify roads in need of improvement and
maintenance and to authorize this action as feasible.
Question 4. Dona Ana County Sheriff Todd Garrison wrote a letter to
the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests opposing S. 1024. Has BLM
talked to Sheriff Garrison about his concerns with S. 1024? Doesn't BLM
rely heavily on local law enforcement officials like Sheriff Garrison
to help police their lands?
Answer. We are aware of Sheriff Garrison's concerns regarding S.
1024. The BLM meets regularly with many of the law enforcement agencies
along the border, including the Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department,
to discuss border security. This includes the Border Management Task
Force meetings facilitated by the BLM and the Border Security Task
Force meetings facilitated by Senator Bingaman's staff. Coordination
and cooperation between law enforcement agencies is excellent and
provides for our improved ability to combat crime along the border.
Responses of Robert Abbey to Questions From Senator Barrasso
s. 1144
In your testimony, you called the Soda Ash Competition Act (S.1144)
``premature'' because the Department had not completed its Soda Ash
report. In May 2010, I sent a letter with Senators Wyden, Enzi, Merkley
and Feinstein requesting the Department expedite the report so that
Congress would have time to review it and consider legislative options.
The report has yet to be submitted, leaving Congress with little time
to respond.
Question 1. During the hearing, you mentioned the potential for
administrative royalty relief on a case-by-case basis. Please provide
information on the nature of this process. Is relief granted on a
lease-by-lease basis?
Answer. Yes, royalty relief is considered on a lease-by-lease basis
for leaseholders who apply for such relief in accordance with the
provisions of 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3513. Each leaseholder may apply for a
royalty rate relief if they meet the criteria contained in 43 C.F.R.
Sec. 3513.12. Under 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3513.12, the BLM ``will consider
if approval:
(a) is in the interest of conservation;
(b) will encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of the
resource; and
(c) is necessary either to promote development of the mineral
resources or because you cannot successfully operate the lease
under existing terms.''
The provisions of 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3513.15 set out the requirements
for the information and documentation that a leaseholder seeking a
reduction must present to the BLM for the agency's consideration of a
rate reduction. The BLM has processed royalty rate reduction
applications from many solid mineral lessees. The BLM analyzes
operational and financial information submitted by the operator and
determines if a royalty rate reduction is justified, based on the
above-described criteria.
The BLM has established Royalty Rate Reduction Guidelines that
allow applications to be processed under five categories; (1) Expanded
Recovery, (2) Extension of Mine Life, (3) Financial Test--Unsuccessful
Operations, (4) Financial Test--Expanded Recovery / Extension of Mine
Life, and (5) Regional. These guidelines are subject to, and must be
implemented consistent with, the provisions of the applicable
regulations. Administratively complete applications containing the
information and documentation required by 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3513.15 to
justify the rate reduction request must be submitted by the lessee and
evaluated by BLM on a lease-by lease basis. Following such submission,
if BLM determines that the criteria of the applicable regulation, 43
C.F.R. Sec. 3513.12, have been met, royalty rate reductions may be
granted on a lease-by-lease basis. Each such decision would be
dependent upon the particular facts presented in each case and thus,
there is no guarantee that every applicant will receive the requested
reduction.
The BLM is willing to entertain ``bundled'' requests for royalty
relief when similarly situated leaseholders jointly submit information
that meets the regulatory tests for which royalty reduction is sought.
Question 2. How long would it take the Department to process a
waiver request?
Answer. Review of royalty rate reduction applications involves
extensive coordination with the applicant, the Office of Natural
Resources Revenue, and the Governor of the affected state. Time frames
are heavily dependent on whether the application is complete and all
the associated information from the operator is provided. Our
experience has shown that in most cases, the review by the affected
state governor will necessitate additional information collection,
analysis and follow-up coordination with both the applicant and the
respective state's governor.
Question 3. Would BLM consider these requests on an expedited basis
given the significant economic and job impacts on the line?
Answer. Yes.
Question 4. What other options, if any, are available to
administratively extend the royalty rate on an interim basis?
Answer. Under current laws and regulations, the Secretary has no
authority to unilaterally extend a general rate reduction of the type
currently imposed by the Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act. Any generally
applicable rate reduction extension for all leases without individual
adjudications would require a formal rulemaking under Administrative
Procedure Act requirements of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553. Those requirements
include publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register and
providing the public with opportunity to comment. The agency then would
need to address any public comments and publish a final rule. The
administrative record supporting such rulemaking would need to
demonstrate the basis and reasons supporting the rule.
Question 5. Would the Department consider granting a temporary one-
year extension to leaseholders to provide Congress adequate time to
review the Department's study?
Answer. There is no current authority for the Department to
immediately grant a general one-year extension of rate reduction to
leaseholders.
Question 6. The BLM has the authority to maintain the current
royalty level. Can you describe to us the procedure the Department
would undertake if the decision is made to maintain the current royalty
rate until Congress has the time to consider your recommendation?
Answer. The BLM does not currently have the authority to continue
the general royalty rate reduction that was granted by the Soda Ash
Royalty Reduction Act of 2006, once the authorities in that Act expire.
The BLM's regulations at 43 C.F.R. Subpart 3513 provide a formal
process for only case-by-case applications by lessees for the reduction
of rental and royalties.
43 C.F.R. Sec. 3513.12 states that BLM will consider an
applicant's request for a reduction in the royalty rate if approval:
(a) is in the interest of conservation;
(b) will encourage the greatest ultimate recovery of the
resource; and
(c) is necessary either to promote development of the mineral
resources or because the applicant cannot successfully operate
the lease under the existing terms.
43 C.F.R. Sec. 3513.15 provides the required information that a
royalty reduction applicant must present to BLM. 43 C.F.R. Sec.
3513.16 provides that BLM will charge a processing fee ``on a case-by-
case basis'' for applications for royalty reduction. Thus, the
applicable regulatory provisions require case-by-case applications and
decisions supported by an administrative record demonstrating that the
criteria of 43 C.F.R. Sec. 3513.12 have been met to justify approval
of a rate reduction.
As stated above, the BLM is willing to entertain ``bundled''
requests for royalty relief when similarly situated leaseholders
jointly submit information that meets the regulatory tests for which
royalty reduction is sought.
______
Responses of Thomas Tidwell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
s. 1090
Question 1. Am I correct that the Cherokee National Forest is not a
Forest Reserve Forest?
Answer. The Cherokee National Forest is not a Forest Reserve. All
lands were acquired under authorities granted by Congress, primarily
the Weeks Act of 1911
Question 2. If that is the case, shouldn't these proposed
Wildernesses be authorized on the Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975, not
the Wilderness Act of 1964?
Answer. Designation in accordance with the 1964 Wilderness Act is
appropriate. The Eastern Wilderness Act of 1975 (P.L. 93-622)
designated certain national forest lands east of the 100th Meridian
``in furtherance of purposes of the Wilderness Act of 1964'' and
provided for the study of certain additional lands for inclusion in the
National Wilderness Preservation System. The 1975 Act limits the law to
areas ``east of the 100th meridian,'' the 1975 Act does not separately
or independently establish authority or criteria to designate
wilderness, but rather is reliant on the authority of the 1964 Act.
s. 1344
Question 1. Chief Tidwell; in your opinion does this bill place a
higher priority on accomplishment of the Wallow fire rehabilitation
over other Forest Service other programs and projects if the bill is
signed into law?
Answer. Yes, the bill language emphasizes the agency's need to take
action on rehabilitating and restoring the Wallow fire area. I have
already addressed this priority within the context of my responsibility
to manage all National Forest System lands. The response to the need
for rehabilitation following the Wallow fire has been to shift the
program of work on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and the
Southwest Region. In addition, the agency takes a strategic approach in
prioritizing funding to provide the maximum opportunity for fire
rehabilitation and recovery in critical emergency landscapes in need of
restoration across the country.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
People for Preserving Our Western Heritage,
August 2, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forest, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Wyden:
I am writing to you and the committee as President of People for
Preserving Our Western Heritage, a coalition of more than 800
businesses, organizations and professionals in Dona Ana County, New
Mexico. The mission of People for Preserving Our Western Heritage is
``To preserve, promote and protect the farming, ranching and rural
heritage of our western lands.'' We support permanently preserving and
protecting the Organ Mountains and the other special areas in our
county. We believe there are viable alternatives to federal Wilderness
designations that can be used to protect our land, our natural
resources, our open space and our western heritage.
We are opposed to the passage of S.1024 as it is currently written
because of the highly limited access it creates that affects our
community for the following reasons:
Border security as we know it today would be severely
compromised. Border Patrol and other law enforcement bodies
currently have access in Wilderness Study Areas. The
designation of Wilderness will severely limit Border Patrol's
ability to carry out its National Security Mission along the
International Border and surrounding areas. Border Patrol will
not have access into the proposed Wilderness areas for routine
patrol.
Control of flood waters is of high importance for those of us
who live in a desert environment. The rainfall events are
characterized many times by intense thunder storms, followed by
flash floods along the arroyos, which cause severe damage.
Current knowledge of control and management of flood waters
require building of structures further up the watershed instead
of at the mouth of the arroyo. Access for construction and
maintenance of protective dams must be confirmed in S.1024.
Guaranteed access to livestock and ranch improvements is not
spelled out clearly in S.1024, Reference to the grazing
guidelines is presented as adequate concession for access to
improvements. The BLM District Manager would not commit to how
``occasional'' access was defined. However, he was certain that
the permittees would not have daily or even weekly access for
maintaining water developments. This is unacceptable in a hot,
dry desert environment.
We are opposed to S.1024 as currently written and request that this
letter be made part of the permanent hearing record.
Respectfully,
Jerry G. Schickedanz,
President,
______
Las Cruces Tea Party.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Wyden:
The Las Cruces Tea Party opposes S. 1024, which designates 242,000
acres as Wilderness near our border with Mexico, for the following
reasons:
Campers will not be allowed motorized access
Hunters will not be allowed motorized access
Tourists, general recreationists and the handicapped
community will not be allowed motorized access
Neither motorized vehicles or mechanical equipment can be
used to construct or maintain flood control projects, thereby
threatening the health and safety of the citizens
neither motorized vehicles or mechanical equipment can be
used by the Border Patrol or state or local law enforcement,
thereby threatening the health and safety of the citizens
The Las Cruces Tea Party opposes the designation of land as
wilderness in Dona Ana County and strongly recommends that where
Federal land is deserving of protection a designation other than
wilderness be utilized.
The Las Cruces Tea Party supports the public having more, not less,
access to Federal land for their use and enjoyment and therefore
strongly opposes the passage of S. 1024.
We ask that this letter be included in the official record. In
addition, we ask that the attached excerpts from the August 3, 2011
edition of The Westerner be included in the official record as it gives
voice to the concerns of many Dona Ana County residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra White,
President.
Attachment.--THE WESTERNER www.thewesterner.blogspot.com
Wednesday, August 03, 2011.
special edition on bingaman's wilderness bill
Today Senator Bingaman will present his Wilderness bill, S. 1024,
to the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. This legislation would
designate as Wilderness over 240,000 acres on or near our border with
Mexico.
Since most folks don't have the opportunity to testify or to meet
with the Senator, we put out a few emails and asked folks for their
comments. The response was overwhelming.
There's no way I could post them all, so I've tried to eliminate
duplicates (although Border Security is mentioned by almost everyone)
and emphasize comments from Dona Ana County or its environs, or from
those who have experience with border issues. Plus I've just run out of
time.
What follows are sometimes edited comments, plus excerpts from
letters opposing S. 1024 sent to the Subcommittee by the National
Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, the Dona Ana County
Sheriff, the Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce and the Dona Ana
Soil & Water Conservation District.
My family has been called the ``First family of Wilderness''
because they were the first family in the nation evicted from
federal wilderness. I am told that their mistreatment is the
reason that grazing language was inserted into the Wilderness
Act. What am I supposed to believe? Is it Mr. Bingaman's word
that grazing will continue in his border bill, or is it what
the government did to my family?...Mayci McKindree Lee, 14 year
old, seventh generation New Mexican ranching descendent and
great-great-great-great granddaughter of pioneer Gila
wilderness rancher, Peter McKindree Shelley .
My Dear Senator; Please listen to the voices of reason and
common sense! Securing the NM Border is a top priority. The
designation of additional Federal protected land will only make
it harder for law enforcement to monitor the increased criminal
activity on the NM Border. Concentrate on job creation not a
legacy of creating vast stretches of land designated for
Wilderness. . .William Mattiace, Former Mayor, City of Las
Cruces, NM.
I am opposed to S1024 because it ignores the BLM wilderness
studies conducted pursuant to FLPMA. The Las Uvas WSA and the
Robledos WSA were found not suitable for Wilderness
designation. The Broad Canyon area between those two WSAs was
found to have insufficient wilderness characteristics to
warrant WSA designation and further study. These three areas
included in S1024 for permanent Wilderness designation are
major Rio Grande watersheds that contribute to frequent
downstream flooding. They have been identified as probable non-
point sources of e coli bacterial contamination of the river
during storm event runoff. Experts associated with the Paso del
Norte Watershed Council are studying the feasibility of
designing and constructing series of small drainage retention
devices throughout the watershed in lieu of traditional large
earthen dams to mitigate both flooding and bacterial
contamination. These innovative practices would not be allowed
under Wilderness designation. . .Tom Mobley, Rancher.
The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers is
opposed to S. 1024. This legislation seeks to create 242,000
acres of wilderness designations on or near our border with
Mexico and deny all but the most minimal use of motorized
vehicles, even for routine patrol. Prohibition against the use
of mechanical equipment will consequently prevent the
deployment of mobile surveillance systems, remote cameras,
electronic detection devices and other tools critical to
maintaining operational control of the area in question.
Approval will restrict unfettered access to Border Patrol
Agents and their equipment to a strip of land only five miles
wide from the border. By Federal statute the Border Patrol has
the right to enter private property within twenty-five miles of
the border and we find it astonishing that Congress would
choose to limit this to five miles on Federal property. .
.Letter to Subcommittee Chairman Wyden from Kent Lundgren,
Chairman, National Association of Former Border Patrol
Officers.
I am against S.1024. If the Potrillos are made wilderness,
the Lazy E will become the doormat from Mexico. My home will be
signpost on the trail north. Reckon these senators will request
armed guards when they want to have supper with me?''. .
.Leonard Goad, Ranch Foreman, Butterfield Trail Ranch.
While I agree we should ensure the lands defined in Senator
Bingaman's Wilderness Bill should never be developed, I
strongly feel the Wilderness designation is too restrictive
jeopardizing Border Security, public safety and flood control
of surrounding population centers, and meaningful public
access. These lands can be protected in more reasonable and
less restrictive ways....Tom Hutchinson, Restaurant Owner,
former Chair, Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce.
I am opposed to Senate Bill 1024 because of my personal
knowledge of and field experience with the rangeland of
southern Dona Ana county, New Mexico. This area needs ecosystem
inputs to mitigate woody plant encroachment occurring on these
rangelands. Active management inputs are functionally not
allowed under wilderness designation. S. 1024 relegates these
lands to a future of continual grassland degradation, soil
exposure and erosion, resulting in a deteriorated watershed and
a downward spiral in rangeland health. . .Chris Allison, Dept.
Head, Ext. Animal Sci. & Nat. Res., NMSU.
The federal government has been derelict in its
constitutional mandate to protect the borders of the United
States. S1024 is reckless and irresponsible legislation which
will further jeopardize our national security. There is already
evidence of human and drug smuggling in the prescribed area
(which does not meet the criteria of the Wilderness Act of
1964), and a wilderness designation will guarantee an increase
in illegal activity which endangers public safety. This
administration and Congress cannot be trusted to honor any MOUs
or promises to law enforcement; therefore, I urge you to defeat
S1024. . .Carol P. Richardson,Retired School Teacher.
As the duly elected Sheriff of Dona Ana County, New Mexico, I
write in opposition to S. 1024 which would designate over
240,000 acres as Wilderness in southern New Mexico. The
Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits the use of motorized vehicles,
mechanical devices and structures in all Wilderness areas. Such
prohibitions would stymie my department's efforts to protect
the public safety. Furthermore, given the recent problems of
drug and human trafficking from Mexico, it would seem the
height of folly to place such restrictions on law enforcement
in this border area. . .Letter to Subcommittee Chairman Wyden
from Todd Garrison, Dona Ana County Sheriff.
I am opposed to S. 1024 because it will cause the loss of
access to wilderness areas by all segments of the population,
greatly hamper efforts by the Border Patrol and law enforcement
to carry out their missions, impose severe limits on ranching
and grazing operations, severely limit recreational
opportunities, endanger sensible flood control projects, cause
severe restrictions on firefighting and search and rescue
operations, and greatly limit potential future growth
opportunities on federal land. The areas that are proposed to
be wilderness do not qualify as wilderness due to the
historical use of, and access to, these allotments. The major
proponents of this bill are those that oppose free enterprise,
and seek to greatly reduce, if not nearly eliminate any private
or public use of federal lands. That is clearly not a sensible,
prudent approach to land management, in this time of severe
economic crisis worldwide, and less and less U.S. access to
resources in an increasingly hostile world. If we are to
survive as a nation, we must protect our borders from foreign,
illegal encroachment, and develop the natural resources we
possess in this country. . .Phil Harvey, Jr., Mesilla Business
Owner.
I am strongly opposed to S.1024 for many reasons, including
the fact that it would create Wilderness in two Wilderness
Study Areas totaling about 30,000 acres which Interior Dept.
determined are lacking in Wilderness characteristics and
recommended they be returned to multiple use status (the Las
Uvas and Robledo Mountains areas). In addition, S.1024 would
create Wilderness in two areas which Interior Dept. studied and
left in multiple use status, also totaling about 30,000 acres,
again due to lack of Wilderness characteristics (the E.
Potrillo Mountains and Broad Canyon areas). S.1024 would
override these realistic conclusions of the Interior Dept.
drawn after studying the areas for 15 years, from 1976 to 1991,
and would ignore the strong opposition of the real
stakeholders. With more than 100 million acres of Wilderness
already created, why is Senator Bingaman so determined to
ignore his Dona Ana County constituents and force S.1024 on us
with staged committee hearings falsely claiming broad community
support? We deserve better! Please stop S.1024 from moving
forward. . .Tom Cooper, Rancher.
Taking the word ``wilderness'' out of the title of S 1024,
does not change the fact that this bill is a wilderness bill
that is attempting to create and restore lands to wilderness
characteristics. This bill is an insult to Wilderness Act of
1964. Wilderness areas are supposed to be already pristine and
untouched by man. This bill completely ignores the very basic
fact that most of the 242,000 acres in your bill were carefully
and professionally studied by unbiased professionals and
declared as unfit for the designation as wilderness. But, you
know that and do not care. This bill and your one sided
``hearing'' is just catering to the green gangsters that do not
care one bit about the security of our borders, our economy,
and want to close all of our precious public lands to most
Americans. Hopefully, this perversion of the Wilderness Act
will be stopped in the House of Representatives. Please retire
early. . .Fred Huff, Outdoor Recreation.
The Greater Las Cruces, NM Chamber of Commerce, representing
approximately 1,000 businesses, has strongly opposed Senator
Bingaman's efforts to designate our community's lands as
``Wilderness'' in the former S. 1689 and now its current
reincarnation of S. 1024. . .Until Senator Bingaman can answer
our concerns regarding these important issues, we stand in
strong in opposition to S. 1024. . .Letter to Subcommittee
Chairman Wyden from John Hummer, Government Affairs, Greater
Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce.
I am opposed to the wilderness bill S.1024 because the bill
as written does not allow for routine access by law enforcement
personnel. The proposed wilderness areas on the border will
become safe sanctuaries for human and drug smugglers. Law
Enforcement Officers in Dona Ana County face many problems in
carrying out their duties and to have another unnecessary law
forced on them will be devastating. . .LeeAnn Evans, Spouse of
former law enforcement employee.
I am opposed to S.1024 because of the severe restrictions it
places on law enforcement efforts and the negative impact it
will have on border security for our community. I am also
opposed to this legislation because of the severe restrictions
on access to the areas involved, and because of the harmful
restrictions placed on the ranchers that operate in these
areas. . .Jodi Denning Horse Owner/Breeder Senator Jeff
Bingaman's bill S-1024 is a further government intrusion into
the rights of all citizens by depriving them access to areas
covered by this unacceptable bill. It is a ``land grab'' and
would be very detrimental to our state and nation. . .Mary C.
Fuller, businesswoman.
I am opposed to S. 1029 because it's unnecessary as the land
is already protected and further restricting it and depriving
it's routine use to law enforcement is contrary to border
security. Also, as one who uses some of this area for
recreation and exploring, I'm concerned that if I should fall
or encounter some other catastrophe no one can come to my aid
except on foot or horseback. It is a bad and short sighted bill
with no ``up side.'' W.J Haynes, Sportsmen.
The addition of more Wilderness land designations on or near
the border between the United States and Mexico is one of the
most ill conceived ideas that Congress will ever be asked to
consider. What could possibly be the rational to effectively
legislate away the lawful presence of the Border Patrol and all
other law enforcement agencies to the extent that they are
denied all but the most insignificant access to areas so
critical to the defense of our national security and the health
and safety of our citizens. Passage into law of this proposed
legislation is not in the best interests of our national
security and must be opposed by all legitimate means. . .Gene
Wood, Border Patrol Chief Patrol Agent (Ret.), Trustee of the
National Border Patrol Museum, Dona Ana County Resident.
Senator, close to 85% of Dona Ana County and this District is
federal land under the management of the Bureau of Land
Management. The Lower Rio Grande Watershed includes all lands
that drain into the Rio Grande from Caballo Dam to the Texas
state line near El Paso, TX, the majority of which are federal
lands. Our concern is about access. Your Senate Bill 1024 will
eliminate the District's access to key areas of this watershed
to perform any watershed restoration projects aimed at
improving watershed health and/or providing for effective
stormwater management to preserve our natural resources and
provide for the safety and welfare of our public and property.
. .Letter to Subcommittee Chairman Wyden from Joe Delk,
Chairman, Dona Ana County Soil & Water Conservation District.
I am opposed to S.1024 because it will become a super highway
for illegal entry into the USA and deny access to the Border
Patrol and other law enforcement. This area will become another
Organ Pipes Cactus National Monument as in Arizona. Secondly, I
am a sportsman and hunter. My access to prime quail area would
be denied. . .Patrick Dunnahoo.
The membership and Board of the Las Cruces T.E.A. Party (Doa
Ana County) stand firmly in opposition to passage of S.1024. We
believe the members of organizations, businesses, and
individuals opposed to the legislation greatly outnumber those
in favor of the legislation, many of whom are not even
residents of Doa Ana County. Our members are greatly concerned
about the impacts of S.1024 including loss of access, on border
security, on our ranching community, on health of the land, and
on recreational opportunities, flood control, and beneficial
use of flood waters. S.1024 is seen by our members and by our
citizens as potentially extremely detrimental to our community
and our agricultural heritage. We ask that the legislation be
withdrawn from any further consideration. . .Debra White,
President, Las Cruces T.E.A. Party.
I am opposed to S1024 because it is not widely supported by
the citizens. The government controls too much land in Dona Ana
county already. The bill will put too much pressure on our
farmland for future growth and the land in question needs to be
accessible for multiple uses. Martin Porter, business owner.
I am vehemently opposed to S1024. This bill has been pushed
by our two Senators in an attempt to confiscate public land and
take it out of our reach. There are a number of reasons to not
make this a Wilderness area: 1) The southern border needs to be
protected from those who want to enter our country illegally.
2) The area needs to be made available to companies and private
enterprise that can make use of the resources and bring revenue
into the state treasury . 3) The federal government already has
confiscated too much of our state. 4) The way of life of those
living in the area needs to be protected over the animals and
plants that live there. 5) The politicians need to listen to
the citizens of this area who have repeatedly said they don't
want this to be a wilderness and are happy with the present
disposition of the land as a managed area. These are only a few
of the reasons that this bill should be tabled. I, as a long
time New Mexico resident, am greatly offended by Senator
Bingaman 's `` my way or the highway'' attitude.''. . .Scott
LaFon, TorC.
I am opposed to S.1024, as it will be putting our nations
security at risk, If wilderness designation is implemented in
southern Dona Ana County along the US New Mexico border, we
then may be facing the same devastation as southern Arizona.
More jeopardy & expense for our citizens. . .Brenda Allen,
Rancher, Realtor.
S.1024 is the same bill as the original Wilderness Bill with
only minor changes. New Mexicans in the majority rejected
S.1689 despite Bingaman and Udall's claims otherwise. It's a
travesty that we in NM must fight again against a bill that
will shut us out of land that for the most part doesn't even
meet the criteria for Wilderness. The new bill does not address
border security and therefore will create a brand new Drug
Corridor for the Southwest. . .Betty Russell, Business Owner.
I'm opposed to S.1024 simply because it ranks border and
national security below the desire to preserve public lands too
near the border. Areas where the Border Patrol cannot have free
access do NOT belong ANYWHERE near our borders. . .Claude E.
Guyant, retired US Border Patrol Agent, former Immigration
Attache, Central & South America, Dona Ana County Resident.
I write in opposition to S.1024 which would limit law
enforcement of the New Mexico/Mexico border, lock up natural
resources, and shut down access to public land. . .Crystal
Diamond, Sierra Soil & Water Conservation District Supervisor.
As the wife of a Potrillo corridor rancher, border wilderness
scares me to death. Think of the implications of that . . . why
does any American have to fear the actions of his or her
government? I am against S.1024.''...Kathy Wilmeth, wife of
Potrillo Mountain corridor rancher, Steve Wilmeth.
S.1024 is very much a concern to all of us who make a living
on or near the border. The more we learn about Arizona, the
more alarmed we become regarding prospects of violence on ALL
expanses of federal lands that limit full and unencumbered
access by Border Patrol. At this time, ALL plans for federal
lands status changes in Hidalgo, Luna, and Dona Ana Counties,
New Mexico must be put on hold. This is a matter of national
security and we ask that you consider the dangerous situation
in which we find ourselves.''...Walt Anderson, Rancher, Hidalgo
Soil & Water Conservation District.
And our friends in Arizona issue a warning.
My beloved southeast Arizona homeland has been devastated by
federal government policy starting with the designation of
federal Wilderness. Senator Bingaman's S.1024 will only hasten
the expansion of the same smuggling corridors that we now have
in Arizona. Wake up Congress!...Joe Dreyfuss, Tucson area
businessman and talk show host.
A wilderness area on the US--Mexico border is a cruel joke.
There is no way the United States government can protect the
supposed wilderness values of land along the border when the
countryside is overrun with illegal aliens and drug smugglers.
We have the Pajarita Wilderness Area just west of Nogales. The
area is covered with illegal immigrant trails, empty water
bottles, discarded backpacks, and littered with spent automatic
weapon bullet shells. At the end of last May illegal aliens
started what they claimed was a ``distress fire'' which burned
most of the wilderness area to ashes. Wilderness Areas impede
securing our border. No new roads can be constructed, the fence
cannot be completed, and Border Patrol access is limited to
horseback and foot travel. Wilderness areas are open doors into
the US for illegal aliens and drug smugglers. Large areas of
federal-managed lands are damaged as a result of putting
protecting alleged wilderness areas ahead of protecting
national security. Those who advocate wilderness areas at the
border are really opposing protecting national security from
the Mexican drug cartels. . .Hugh Holub, an attorney who blogs
at the Tucson Citizen newspaper.
Posted by Frank DuBois at 4:49 AM.
______
Dona Ana Soil and Water Conservation District,
Board of Supervisors,
Las Cruces, NM, August 2, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, 703 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: S.1024
Dear Senator Bingaman,
I am appealing to you today as Chairman of the Dona Ana Soil and
Water Conservation District (District) with grave concerns about
S.1024.
As an elected Supervisor and Chair, I have an obligation to my
Board of Supervisors and my constituents to address issues that relate
to the preservation and protection of the natural resources of this
District in general and the Lower Rio Grande Watershed in particular.
Senator, close to 85% of Dona Ana County and this District is
federal land under the management of the Bureau of Land Management. The
Lower Rio Grande Watershed includes all lands that drain into the Rio
Grande from Caballo Dam to the Texas state line near El Paso, TX, the
majority of which are federal lands.
My concern is about access.
Your Senate Bill 1024 will eliminate the District's access to key
areas of this watershed to perform any watershed restoration projects
aimed at improving watershed health and/or providing for effective
stormwater management to preserve our natural resources and provide for
the safety and welfare of our public and property.
Please, how can you believe this to be good for Dona Ana County?
Senator Bingaman, please consider the long term ramifications of
eliminating the ability of this community to effectively manage these
key watersheds by restricting access to them and pull S.1024.
Respectfully,
Joe Delk,
Chair.
______
Greater Las Cruces Chamber of Commerce,
Government Affairs,
August 1, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
RE: OPPOSITION TO S. 1024
Dear Chairman Wyden:
The Greater Las Cruces, NM Chamber of Commerce, representing
approximately 1,000 businesses, has strongly opposed Senator Bingaman's
efforts to designate our community's lands as ``Wilderness'' in the
former S. 1689 and now its current reincarnation of S. 1024. Please
note the following when considering S. 1024:
There is ``not'' a consensus of support within our community
for this legislation.
Our current Governor has expressed concerns regarding
Wilderness designations in Dona Ana County.
Our Congressman, Steve Pearce, who represents the very
district affected by this legislation, has expressed strong
opposition to Senator Bingaman's legislation.
There is a deep concern within our community on S. 1024's
negative impact to our local, state and national security due
to its wilderness designation of lands near the U.S. / Mexican
border.
There is deep concern regarding S. 1024's negative impact on
flood control within our valley.
Until Senator Bingaman can answer our concerns regarding these
important issues, we stand in strong in opposition to S. 1024. Please
ensure that this letter be made part of the official record when
evaluating and debating S. 1024.
Thank you.
John L. Hummer,
Division Chair.
______
New Mexico State University,
College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental
Sciences,
Southwest Boarder Food Safety and Defense Center,
Office of Biosecurity,
Las Cruces, NM, August 17, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden.
I respectfully request that congress not designate the proposed
areas of Dona Ana County as Wilderness Area. Drug trafficking and
illegal activity always increases in areas along the border where
civilian or law enforcement activity decreases.
This area is largely badlands with no tourist value and there will
not be any benefits derived from its designation and the risks to the
county, New Mexico and the US will increase significantly.
No one argues the value of preserving the peaks of the mountains;
however hundreds of thousands of acres is flat barren land with no
extra value to be derived and much to be lost as a drug trafficking
corridor and illegal access corridor.
We are concerned about the spread of diseases, both animal and
human, by illegal traffickers coming across the border without any
inspection or permits. We have concerns that law enforcement cannot
have unfettered access in wilderness areas. Law enforcement officers
are not able to use motorized vehicles in the wilderness areas without
obtaining a permit. Routine patrol by law enforcement, federal, state
and county officers cannot be accomplished under prohibited uses in the
Wilderness Act. Our water supplies and food production can be
contaminated by flood waters from arroyos carrying human waste of
illegals hiding.
Sincerely,
Billy Dictson,
Director.
______
Hidalgo County Sheriff's Department,
Lordsburg, NM, August 11, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden:
I am writing to oppose S. 1024, which would designate 242,000 acres
near our border with Mexico as Wilderness.
The ``Prohibition of Certain Uses'' section of the Wilderness Act
prevents the use of motor vehicles, mechanized equipment and other
tools which are vital to local law enforcement. Of additional concern
are the five Wilderness study Areas in Hidalgo County, totaling 98,960
acres, which are being promoted as candidates for future legislation.
Given the current situation on our border I find it highly
inadvisable to create Federal land use designations which prevent,
limit or restrict law enforcement activity.
Thank you for your consideration and please include this as part of
the official record.
Respectfully,
Saturnino Madero,
Sheriff.
______
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers
Brunswick, GA, August 1, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forest, 223 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden:
The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers is
opposed to S. 1024. This legislation seeks to create 242,000 acres of
wilderness designations on or near our border with Mexico and deny all
but the most minimal use of motorized vehicles, even for routine
patrol. Prohibition against the use of mechanical equipment will
consequently prevent the deployment of mobile surveillance systems,
remote cameras, electronic detection devices and other tools critical
to maintaining operational control of the area in question. Approval
will restrict unfettered access to Border Patrol Agents and their
equipment to a strip of land only five miles wide from the border. By
Federal statute the Border Patrol has the right to enter private
property within twenty-five miles of the border and we find it
astonishing that Congress would choose to limit this to five miles on
Federal property.
Our organization is currently completing a review and analysis of
570 documents which we recently received from Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) pursuant to a request authorized by the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
We believe that a knowledgeable examination of these highly
redacted documents will help determine, among other things, what
criteria was used by the sponsor of S.1024 (formerly S.1689), when
negotiating exceptions to the strict ``no human presence'' provisions
mandated by Section 4(a)(3)(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Specifically, we hope to determine on what basis it was found
acceptable to confine all Border Patrol assets and activities into a
narrow five-mile wide strip along 25.24 miles of the US/Mexico border.
This crucial section of the border is located in southern New Mexico
between the Border Patrol Stations located at Santa Teresa and Deming,
New Mexico. It is adjacent to the city of Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico
which is recognized as one of the most dangerous cities in the world.
While we do not speak for the active Border Patrol, it is clear
from our several millennia of collective experience that even the
smallest impediment to unencumbered access of enforcement assets is
unacceptable. Agent safety and national security issues are of
paramount concern to us.
Additionally, we are hopeful that our review will determine to what
degree Border Patrol Field Supervisors were denied permission to
provide candid assessments of the likely consequences of withdrawing
enforcement assets as proposed by S.1024, and how the implementation of
this restriction will adversely affect their ability to accomplish
priorities mandated by the National Border Strategy.
Until answers to these important questions have been answered and
for the other reasons stated herein, we respectively request that this
legislation not be advanced and that this letter be made a part of the
official record.
Sincerely,
Kent Lundgren,
Chairman.
______
Sierra Club,
August 3, 2011.
Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee, Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator:
On behalf of the Sierra Club's 1.4 million members and supporters
across the country, I'd like to state our strong support for two bills
scheduled for a hearing on August 3, 2011: S. 1024 the Organ
Mountains--Doa Ana County Conservation and Protection Act, and S. 1090
the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2011. Taken together these bills would
designate more than 260,000 acres as wilderness, protecting vital
habitat and corridors for wildlife and popular recreational spots that
support local economies. We urge your committee to expeditiously pass
these important pieces of legislation.
The Organ Mountains--Doa Ana County Conservation and Protection Act
would designate 241,000 acres of wilderness and protect another 100,000
acres as a national conservation area around the Organ and Robledo
mountains as well as parts of Broad Canyon. These are biologically and
culturally rich landscapes that enjoy across the board support from
local communities. This support includes: hundreds of local businesses,
thousands of local citizens, the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las
Cruces, the Las Cruces Green Chamber of Commerce, the Southwest
Environmental Center, the Doa Ana County Associated Sportsmen, the
Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen, the Back Country Horsemen of New
Mexico, local government, former Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn
Scarlett, and Paul Deason, member of the U.S. Department of Justice
Anti-terrorism Advisory Council. The bill passed through committee in
the 111th Congress and we hope to see similar action this year.
The Tennessee Wilderness Act enjoys similar bipartisan support from
business owners, hunters, hikers, the faith community, and local law
makers. The bill would designate nearly 20,000 acres as wilderness in
the Cherokee National Forest. This would expand five existing
wilderness areas as well as create the Upper Bald River Wilderness
Area. If passed, this measure would create Tennessee's first new
wilderness in 25 years. It would also protect key wild places in the
Cherokee that provide clean drinking water to nearby communities as
well as some of Tennessee's premier hunting and hiking destinations.
With your support, the communities that depend on these lands and
support these bills can ensure that their needs are met and that these
places get the protection they deserve.
Please support and move the Organ Mountains--Doa Ana County
Conservation and Protection Act and the Tennessee Wilderness Act as
quickly as possible. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Brune,
Executive Director.
______
Rio Grande Soaring Association,
El Paso, TX.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forest, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden,
The Rio Grande Soaring Association is a group of soaring pilots
with a membership of approximately 100 who reside in west Texas and New
Mexico.
We have been flying the mountains of southern New Mexico for over
30 years. Among our sites are the East and West Potrillo Mountains
including Mt. Riley and Mt. Cox.
S. 1024 would drastically affect access to our flying sites. That
is, we would effectively lose access to the above sites. For this
reason, we are opposed to the bill (S. 1024).
Other than the ranchers who live in Potrillo Mountain ranges, we
are probably the next greatest public user of these lands. Have the
groups who are promoting this bill ever traveled to the Potrillo
Mountains? If so, how often? Once or twice a year?
Furthermore, how is it that this area is being considered as
Wilderness in the first place? It hardly meets the criteria of the 1964
Act--it is crisscrossed with roads, mines, fences, quarries, water
tanks, and ranches.
If it becomes a wilderness, no one will be able to get in there
except on horseback. Does anyone have any idea how barren and dry this
area is? I've been going in and out of there for over 30 years and I
have never seen ONE person on foot except at the Maars or on Mt. Riley
and they got there by car/truck.
In any case, the Rio Grande Soaring Association is opposed to S.
1024 and we wish this letter to be made a permanent part of the hearing
record.
Sincerely yours,
Hadley Robinson,
Secretary.
______
Statement of Tom Hutchinson, Former Chair, Greater Las Cruces Chamber
of Commerce, on S. 1024
I want to take a moment a share some thoughts I have on S 1024.
One point, and a very significant one for that matter, is that both
sides of the argument, those citizens who embrace all elements of S
1024, and those citizens who would like to see modifications; all agree
that the Organ Mountains be withdrawn from future development of any
kind and retained as public lands. This can best be accomplished with a
National Conservation Area (NCA) designation.
The two issues that seemed to generate the most controversy center
around, 1)National Security and the Wilderness designations on or in
close proximity to our national border and, 2) the public safety issues
associated with access to lands for flood control and water capture
projects.
When making decision that have elements of risk, whether national
security or public safety associated with them, in nearly all cases,
one can not totally eliminate risk, but one can manage risk.
In the case of the Potrillo Mountain Complex, although there
appears to be some concession in S 1024 for a buffer between the border
and the Potrillo Mountain Complex Wilderness area, the wilderness area
is still dangerously close for sheltering/accommodating illegal
activity and preventing law enforcement from aggressively taking
action.
If we know, and Border Patrol, both active and retired tell me so,
that their access and apprehension activity would be less hampered in
areas other than wilderness designation, i.e. NCA or Rangeland
Preservation Area (RPA), and we can manage the risk better, it would
seem the prudent and responsible decision to make is to designate the
Potrillo Mountain Complex as something other than Wilderness. As an NCA
or RPA, we still preserve it, we write the rules for access and law
enforcement has greater and more flexibility.
With regard to the Broad Canyon area and the current Organ Mountain
NCA, Gary Esslinger with Elephant Butte Irrigation District ( EBID),
has made a compelling argument regarding the public safety risk
associated with limiting access and activity in those areas associated
with flood control and water capture. Again, if we can manage public
safety by giving the Broad Canyon area and Organ Mountain NCA, a
designation, perhaps RPA, that can allow appropriate access to manage
flood control and water drainage challenges, with the proper
designation, we can preserve it and give meaningful access to necessary
agencies to manage water issues.
This is precisely why Wilderness designated areas in already remote
areas typically have very little border security or public safety
concerns. On the other hand, wilderness designations in close proximity
to an international border or population centers raise credible
national security and public safety concerns.
As a final note, I believe both sides of the argument can benefit
from understanding the town of Hatch's perspective on this issue. Hatch
not only experienced a catastrophic flood in 2006, but the town
leadership chose to reverse their support for a Wilderness Bill. They
understood the restrictive nature of a Wilderness designation and it's
impact on future flood control activity. With regard to Border Patrol
and law enforcement, the illegal activity associated with border
wilderness areas in Arizona is frightening. It seems there are those
that want to ignore and dismiss that this same activity could occur in
New Mexico. Even if there is only a remote chance it could, would it
not be wise and prudent to establish a designation that would further
minimize national security and illegal activity risk.
Accordingly, I respectfully request S 1024 be withdrawn from
further consideration as it is currently written.
______
Dona Ana County Sheriff's Department,
Las Cruces, NM, August 2, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington DC.
Dear Senator Wyden:
As the duly elected Sheriff of Dona Ana County, New Mexico, I write
in opposition to S. 1024 which would designate over 240,000 acres as
Wilderness in southern New Mexico.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits the use of motorized vehicles,
mechanical devices and structures in all Wilderness areas. Such
prohibitions would stymie my department's efforts to protect the public
safety. Furthermore, given the recent problems of drug and human
trafficking from Mexico, it would seem the height of folly to place
such restrictions on law enforcement in this border area.
Congress has at its disposal other land designations which would
protect the areas from development without placing such encumbrances on
law enforcement. I strongly urge you to utilize one or more of these
other designations and to reject the provisions of S. 1024.
Sincerely,
Todd Garrison,
Sheriff.
______
Mesilla Valley Sportsmen's Alliance,
Las Cruces, NM, August 15, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, 703 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: S.1024
Dear Senator Bingaman,
The Mesilla Valley Sportsmen's Alliance represents a majority of
families in this valley who could be described as your common, everyday
folks who work in the agriculture industry, real estate development and
construction, local, state and federal government, New Mexico State
University, NASA, and White Sands Missile Range or are retired. These
families are the hard-working people of Dona Ana County who make this
community tick.
These families also play hard. On any given weekend, you will find
many of these folks have loaded up their assorted recreational
necessities whether its horses, campers, RV's, ATV's, Jeeps or pickups
with the appropriate gear and they're off to their favorite public
lands area to spend quality time with their families and friends. The
key, Mr. Bingaman, is ACCESS.
These families I am referring to do not support your idea of
``protecting these lands for future generations'' by restricting access
to only a few who are able to either walk or go horseback into a
``wilderness area''. The local Western Heritage group has clearly
demonstrated that if the intent is to protect these areas from
development, congress has the ability to merely withdraw these lands
from disposal without restricting appropriate access for resource
management and recreational activities. Why is that not a viable
option?
Another point, Mr. Bingaman, is the fact that it is the ranchers
and sportsmen who are on these public lands everyday and provide the
stewardship and management of these public lands to keep them healthy
and clean. If ranchers don't develop and manage water distribution on
our public lands for the benefit of their livestock, where do we think
wildlife will access water? Ranchers and sportsmen work in concert to
establish and maintain a healthy balance in the ecosystem.
Also, Mr. Bingaman, I'm sure that the activities of sportsmen on
our public lands, especially those closer to the Mexican border,
contribute to border security. Sportsmen play a significant role in the
vigilance we must all engage in to keep our country safer. How can you
think ``wilderness on the border'', which locks the public and the
Border Patrol out of those areas, to be acceptable?
Finally, Mr. Bingaman, I want to address the importance of family.
In every family, there are family members who are either, too old, too
young or otherwise incapable of walking or riding horseback, that
deserve to have access to recreate on our !public lands. Yet you have
selected some of the best recreational areas in Dona Ana County to
``protect for future generations''. What are you protecting these lands
from? Do you think non-use is the answer? Why do you think it's alright
to limit access to these wonderful areas of our public lands to only
those physically capable of walking or riding horseback?
The families represented by Mesilla Valley Sportsmen's Alliance
take great pride in the involvement of their families, especially the
youth, in their recreational activities. Please don't take that away
from us in Dona Ana County.
We call on you to withdraw your S.1024 and as such, allow continued
recreational access to all of the public lands in Dona Ana County.
Sincerely,
Ralph Ramos,
Co-chair.
______
Building Industry Association of Southern New Mexico,
Las Cruces, NM, August 15, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden:
The Building Industry of Southern New Mexico (BIA) is a non-profit
trade association of over 400 members and represents the residential
and commercial home building industry in our region. Its designated
membership area includes all of Dona Ana County as well as the Truth or
Consequences and Deming areas.
Our association is very concerned about provisions in S. 1024 which
would limit or prevent the Border Patrol from accomplishing their
mission. Furthermore, those same provisions would disallow or delay the
maintenance of existing flood control structures and prohibit the
construction of new structures.
Primarily for those reasons the BIA is opposed to the passage of S.
1024 in its current form.
Please include this letter in the official record.
Respectfully,
Farrell Thurston,
President.
______
U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
Washington, DC, June 1, 2010.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman:
I write to thank you for your efforts to address border enforcement
concerns in S. 1689, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Wilderness Act.
The provisions of this bill, including your recent changes to address
the operational needs of the Border Patrol, would significantly enhance
the flexibility of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to operate
in this border area.
As you know, the existing wilderness study area along the southern
boundary of the West Potrillo Mountains provides CBP with 1/3 of a mile
in which to perform its activities. The most recent changes that you
have made to the bill would provide five miles between the U.S.-Mexico
border and the area with full wilderness protections. Three miles of
this zone would allow normal public access, and an additional two miles
would allow restricted use by the public. Throughout the entire buffer
zone, CBP could operate motor vehicles, build infrastructure, and carry
out other activities as it would on any non-wilderness Bureau of Land
Management land.
I also appreciate other security-focused modifications that you
have made to the bill, including:
Explicit provision to allow the East-West way, which will be
closed to the public, to be accessible to CBP and other law
enforcement personnel;
Clarification that no provision of the bill would restrict
CBP from pursuit of suspects within the wilderness area,
including the use of motorized vehicles in hot pursuit; and
Clarification that nothing prevents CBP from conducting low-
level overflights above the wilderness area.
The security-related enhancements to this bill are the result of
careful consultations between your office and CBP in New Mexico and
Washington, DC. While the solutions identified in this bill are
specific to this particular area of the border, the collaborative
process should be a model for future consideration of wilderness
designation along the border.
Sincerely,
Alan Bersin,
Commissioner.
______
Statement of Jenn Dice, Director of Government Affairs, International
Mountain Bicycling Association, on S. 1090
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to express our concern regarding certain provisions
included in S. 1090, the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2011. This Act is
the culmination of years of local collaboration and effort to protect
treasured wild places where Tennesseans and visitors from around the
country seek solitude and adventure. However, we respectfully express
concern regarding the impact to local trail systems from a new proposed
highway corridor included in the legislation. Assurance that the new
highway would not negatively impact the trails or that any impacted
trails or related facilities such as trailhead parking and restrooms
would be replaced would allow IMBA to wholeheartedly support this
legislation.
Founded in 1988, the International Mountain Bicycling Association
(IMBA) leads the national and worldwide mountain bicycling communities
through a network of 80,000 individual supporters, 750 affiliate clubs,
and 600 dealer members. IMBA teaches sustainable trail building
techniques and has become a leader in trail design, construction, and
maintenance; encourages responsible riding, volunteer trail work, and
cooperation among trail user groups and land managers. Each year, IMBA
members and affiliated clubs conduct more than one million hours of
volunteer trail stewardship on America's public lands and are some of
the best assistants to federal, state, and local land managers.
Wilderness designations are a difficult issue for IMBA and mountain
bicyclists. On one hand we want to preserve the beauty and experience
of wild landscapes. On the other hand, federal land management agencies
interpret the Wilderness Act of 1964 to prohibit the use of mountain
bicycles. Our decision to support a Wilderness proposal or bill is not
one we take lightly. Only when we have worked with the Wilderness
proponents to develop win-win solutions can we fully support the
designation.
IMBA is concerned with portions of the Tennessee Wilderness Act of
2011, as we understand a new highway, Corridor K, will be built in the
Ocoee River Gorge, and this project could negatively impact a popular
and economically significant mountain bike trail system. We are asking
that no action be taken on the Wilderness Act until the Corridor K
route is determined or if assurance can be provided that the trails
would not be negatively impacted. We believe the area should receive
permanent land protection, but first new trails must be designed and
built to replace those trails destroyed by the new highway. This
careful attention to detail in drawing the boundaries and considering
the diverse recreational opportunities the public enjoys can continue,
while at the same time preserving the extensive wilderness compatible
is essential for creating a broad base of local support for this Act.
We applaud the bill's sponsors, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) for their outstanding support for Tennessee
public lands. There are many special places across the beautiful state
threatened by resource extraction, development, and road building. IMBA
agrees that Tennessee's most treasured places, like Little Frog and Big
Fork Mountain must be safeguarded, but in this case we ask you to work
with us to preserve these trails, a critical recreational asset, before
acting on the Wilderness Bill.
As mountain bikers, we cherish the natural landscape and work to
protect and maintain the trails. The mountain bike trails around the
Ocoee River Gorge is an important recreational resource for the scenic
yet economically challenged region. Every year thousands of mountain
cyclists attend events and support the local economy. Without a doubt
Tanasi/Chillhowee is a premier national mountain bike destination.
As demands on public lands continue to increase the areas that have
been preserved for their recreational assets will continue to support
local business. Wilderness additions created through the same local
process and careful boundary definitions help to ensure that towns like
those near Ocoee River Gorge area will continue to reap the benefits of
a healthy recreation economy.
We look forward to continuing to work diligently with the bill
sponsors' staff to preserve the region's conservation and recreation
legacy.
______
August 3, 2011.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 223 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 709
Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, 307 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: We are respectfully writing to
thank you for scheduling a hearing on S.1090, the Tennessee Wilderness
Act of 2011. As you know, this bill, introduced by Senator Alexander
and cosponsored by Senator Corker, would protect 19,556 acres of
Tennessee's national forest lands as wilderness.
We are part of the broad, locally based support for Senator
Alexander's proposal. This group includes more than 70 businesses,
locally-elected officials, conservation and outdoor recreation groups
and religious leaders. For your information, we have included a partial
list of the supporters of this legislation.
The broad support for S.1090 is the result of several factors. The
legislation expands five beloved existing wilderness areas. This
includes additions to the Big Frog (348 acres) and Little Frog
Wilderness Areas (978 acres) in Polk County. Both of these special
areas are within an hour's drive of Chattanooga. Chattanooga's
revitalization is inextricably linked to its proximity to outdoor
amenities such as these wilderness areas. Protecting these areas has
allowed nearby Hamilton and Bradley Counties to attract major
corporations such as Volkswagen, Wacker and Amazon.com, as businesses
are keenly aware that prospective employees need places to recreate to
maintain their quality of life.
In addition, this legislation will expand the Joyce Kilmer
Slickrock Wilderness (1,836 acres) and create the first new wilderness
area in Tennessee in 25 years; the Upper Bald River Wilderness (9,038
acres). Both of these areas are located in Monroe County and are within
90 minutes of Knoxville. The Joyce Kilmer Slickrock Wilderness offers
outstanding recreational opportunities including hunting, fishing,
horseback riding, hiking, camping and fall foliage viewing. The Upper
Bald River Wilderness Study Area protects nearly an entire watershed.
In addition to the water quality protection that this provides for
downstream communities (including Chattanooga), the area offers
outstanding opportunities to fish for native brook trout and hunt for
both black bear and wild boar. Nearly 12 miles of the Benton MacKaye
Trail will be permanently protected as a result of this legislation.
In northeast Tennessee, additions to the Big Laurel Branch
Wilderness (4,446 acres) in Carter and Johnson Counties and the Sampson
Mountain Wilderness (2,922 acres) located in Washington and Unicoi
Counties offer enhanced recreational opportunities within 45 minutes of
Johnson City. The Big Laurel Branch Wilderness addition will
permanently protect 4.5 miles of the Appalachian Trail on Iron
Mountain. The Sampson Mountain addition is adjacent to the newly
obtained Rocky Fork tract, enhancing the conservation value of both of
these parcels.
We hope that you will favorably move S.1090 in the near future.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other signatures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Ashe,
Former Mayor Knoxville, TN,
Former US Ambassador to Poland.
Joan Ashe,
Knoxville, TN.
Leon Humphrey,
Mayor, Carter County.
Larry Potter,
Mayor, Johnson County
______
Geothermal Energy Association,
Washington, DC, August 1, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden, On behalf of the Geothermal Energy Association
(GEA), I am writing to express our strong support for S. 1149. This is
important legislation to ensure the timely development of new
geothermal prospects in the Western US.
We urge the Subcommittee to support this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Karl Gawell,
Executive Director.
______
Glass Packaging Institute,
Alexandria, VA, August 2, 2011.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support of S. 1144, the Soda Ash Competition Act
Dear Chairman Wyden: I represent the Glass Packaging Institute
(GPI), which is the trade association for the glass container
manufacturers of beverage and food containers, as well as suppliers to
our collective industry. Our industry employs tens of thousands of
Americans in 48 operating glass container manufacturing plants
throughout the country. The U.S. soda ash industry is a critical
supplier and partner of the glass container industry, as soda ash is
used as part of our manufacturing processes on a daily basis.
We would like to offer our support for your legislation, S. 1144,
the Soda Ash Competition Act, under consideration this week in the
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests.
S. 1144 is a vital piece of legislation that will help to ensure
the competitiveness of the U.S. soda ash industry, and to the companies
they supply by extending the royalty rate at 2% for an additional five
years, for all outputs of sodium compounds, including soda ash, on
federal land.
The U.S. soda ash industry relies on the current 2% rate to stay
competitive in an export market increasingly distorted by foreign
industrial policies. As the majority of the world's naturally occurring
soda ash is found in the U.S., the ability to continue to supply glass
container domestic markets and more fairly compete in the export market
is crucial.
As you are aware, the export of soda ash through this country's
ports is economically significant, as it is the number two export
headed through the Port of Portland.
The American Natural Soda Ash Corporation (ANSAC) estimates that a
five year extension of the current 2% rate would provide soda ash
producers certainty and confidence to expand production, while
supporting thousands of existing jobs and contributing to $1 billion
annually in exports.
The domestic soda ash market now contends with unfair manipulation
in the global markets, specifically China, whose has offered their
exporters of soda ash a 9% rebate on the 17% value added tax (VAT).
This legislation is one step forward in an attempt to create a more
level playing field for the domestic soda ash industry. Additionally,
the Chinese synthetic soda ash production process is significantly more
energy intensive than current domestic production from naturally
occurring deposits of trona (soda ash) found in the U.S.
Glass container manufacturers and our domestic soda ash partners
depend on each other to ensure continued success of our industries. We
hope your Committee will favorably consider this legislation. Please
contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding our
position on this legislation.
Sincerely,
Lynn M. Bragg,
President.
______
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 31, 2011.
Hon. Gary Locke,
U.S. Secretary of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Kirk,
U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Locke and Ambassador Kirk: We are writing to express
our continued concerns about China's use of a Value-Added Tax (VAT)
rebate to promote its soda ash industry at the expense of U.S. exports.
For over two years, China has provided its domestic manufacturers with
an artificial incentive to export through a 9% rebate of the 17% VAT.
For a number of reasons, we ask that the issue of the soda ash VAT
rebate be specifically included on the JCCT agenda this fall.
After suspending its VAT rebate for soda ash in July 2007, China
reinstated the soda ash rebate in April 2009 to encourage its own
exports during the global economic crisis. China's state-supported soda
ash industry is the largest in the world and this policy is harmful to
its international competitors, particularly U.S. soda ash
manufacturers. As you may know, U.S. soda ash has a natural advantage
over Chinese soda ash, based on a manufacturing process that is much
more sustainable in terms of environmental protection and energy use
than the synthetic processes used in China. China's manipulation of the
VAT rebate to support its domestic soda ash industry also has wider
implications--not only is it economically unjustified, it contravenes
China's own interests in shifting energy resources from more productive
and efficient industries.
We must focus on Chinese policies that are a direct threat to U.S.
exports and U.S. jobs. The soda ash VAT rebate is one such policy.
Chinese exports compete directly with U.S. soda ash exports in the
Asia-Pacific market and beyond. Although the VAT is just one part of
China's overall industrial policy, the soda ash VAT rebate is a
distinct threat to U.S. manufacturing in a sector where the United
States enjoys a natural competitive advantage. If we don't stand up for
the pillars of our export-based manufacturers like the soda ash
industry--and the U.S. workers employed throughout the soda ash supply
chain--we cannot seriously contend we are doing everything we can to
support U.S. exports.
We ask that the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade
Representative's Office ensure that the soda ash VAT rebate is raised
at the highest levels with Chinese officials at the JCCT meetings this
year, The message should be as clear as it is convincing; namely, China
should live up to its repeated pledge to discourage the expansion of
highly-polluting and energy-intensive sectors such as its own soda ash
industry. Policies aimed at promoting soda ash exports, such as the VAT
rebate, are inconsistent with China's own stated goals and a direct
threat to U.S. interests.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of this request and look
forward to your response.
Michael B. Enzi,
U.S. Senator.
John Barrasso, M.D.,
U.S. Senator.
David Wu,
U.S. Representative.
Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senator.
Robert Menendez,
U.S. Senator.
Cynthia Lummis,
U.S. Representative.
Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senator.
Jeff Merkley,
U.S. Senator.
James A. Himes,
U.S. Representative.
Frank Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator.
______
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 5, 2009.
Hon. Ron Kirk,
U.S. Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Dear Ambassador Kirk: We are writing to express our serious concern
over the decision by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to begin
offering, effective April 1, 2009, its soda ash exporters a 9% rebate
on the 17% VAT. We strongly urge you and others in the Administration
to convey the U.S. government's concern over this development and
request that the rebate offer be promptly eliminated.
U.S. soda ash, which is a primary raw material in the manufacturing
of glass and detergents, is the most competitive and environmentally
friendly in the world due to a unique natural deposit of the raw
material, trona, located in Wyoming. Over 40% of U.S. production is
exported. With U.S. exports in 2008 reaching $1.4 billion, soda ash is
the second largest export from the Port of Portland, and thousands of
jobs are dependent on this industry in a number of other U.S. states,
including Connecticut, New Jersey, Georgia and Texas.
In 2003, China became the world's largest producer and consumer of
soda ash. Roughly 45% of China's soda ash production is done through a
synthetic process, the major byproduct of which is calcium chloride, a
well-known contributor to environmentally-harmful toxic sludge
emissions. This process generates five times the amount of waste as
naturally-sourced U.S. soda ash. Moreover, Chinese synthetic soda ash
production is highly energy intensive. About 13.6 million BTUs per
metric ton are required to produce China's synthetic soda ash, compared
to 6.3 million BTUs per metric ton needed to produce U.S. natural soda
ash.
The recent PRC decision to offer the 9% VAT rebate to its exporters
will further stimulate excessive capacity expansions in China. Chinese
export prices, helped by the artificial incentive to export, will
decline at the expense of U.S. exports, particularly in the Asia-
Pacific region. This will happen in the midst of a major decline in
global demand for soda ash. The new rebate is nothing short of
irresponsible during this troublesome economic period.
Moreover, the export rebate represents an unfortunate policy shift
in China that is harmful to China's own interests. In July 2007, PRC
eliminated the 13% VAT rebate on soda ash exports. The decision to do
this was, according to a WTO Report, designed to limit the export of
products deemed to have an adverse effect on the environment and to
reduce exports of highly energy intensive products such as soda ash.
Consequently, the recent decision to reintroduce a VAT rebate on
Chinese soda ash exports is a setback both for China and U.S. soda ash
exporters.
Therefore, we urge you and others in the Administration to
immediately consult with the appropriate senior Chinese government
officials in an effort to achieve the elimination of the April 1 9% VAT
rebate on soda ash.
We greatly appreciate your consideration of this important matter
to the U.S. soda ash industry and look forward to your response.
Mike Enzi,
U.S. Senator.
John Barrasso,
U.S. Senator.
Cynthia M. Lummis,
U.S. Representative.
Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senator.
Phil Gingrey, M.D.,
U.S. Representative.
David Wu,
U.S. Representative.
Joseph I. Lieberman,
U.S. Senator.
James A. Himes,
U.S. Representative.
Jeff Merkley,
U.S. Senator.
Robert Menendez,
U.S. Senator.
Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator.
______
Statement of Randi Spivak, Vice President of Government Affairs, Geos
Institute, on S. 1344
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the
Subcommittee, the Geos Institute greatly appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record on S. 1344, the ``Arizona Wallow Fire
Recovery and Monitoring Act.''
The Geos Institute is a science-based organization with expertise
in forest and watershed management, ecological restoration and post-
disturbance ecology. We engage in scientific analysis and forest
management policy on federal lands.
The purpose of S.1344 as stated is to ``take immediate action to
recover ecologically and economically from a catastrophic wildfire in
the State of Arizona.'' The bill further calls for rehabilitating and
restoring the Wallow Fire Area. The primary method for accomplishing
both the ecological and economic goals would be to log areas burned by
the Wallow fire.
The Geos Institute agrees that following a wildland fire federal
land management agencies should act quickly to protect public safety.
The Forest Service is currently using existing authorities to remove
hazard trees from roadsides and campgrounds and create defensible space
in the immediate vicinities of communities at risk. Burned Area
Emergency Recovery (BAER) practices that have proven to be effect
should also be implemented.
Abundant science however, has shown that post-fire or ``salvage''
logging is not ecologically restorative, most results in cumulative
impacts to watersheds after fires, can elevate the risk of fires from
logging slash left on the ground and can be detrimental to long-term
forest development and other critical ecosystem services such as soil
stability and erosion control.\1\ University of Washington Professor
Dr. Jerry Franklin noted that logging dead trees often has greater
negative impacts than logging of live trees and concluded, ``timber
salvage is most appropriately viewed as a `tax' on ecological
recovery.''\2\ Any post-fire logging beyond what is necessary to
protect public safety will likely result in greater damage and be more
costly to the communities within the Wallow Fire area than any short
term-gain from the sale of fire-damaged logs. Further, only by
maintaining crucial ecological processes post-fire like nutrient
cycling in recovering soils and native plant species establishment
functions can we expect to sustain renewable resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Donato et. al. 2006. Post-Fire Logging Hinders Regeneration and
Increases Fire Risks, Science., Beschta et al.,2004. Postfire
Management on Forested Public Lands of the Western United States.
Conservation Biology. D.B. Lindenmayer et al., 2004 Salvage Harvesting
After Natural Disturbance. Science, D. B. Lindenmayer, Salvage Logging
and its Ecological Consequences, Island Press
\2\ Testimony House Subcommittee on Resources, November 10, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, logging immediately after a fire has been show to:
1. Inhibit the ability of a forest to regenerate.--Numerous
scientific studies have shown that logging after fires can
actually reduce the ability of a forest to naturally
regenerate. Logging, especially the use of ground based
equipment:
a. Hampers natural re-growth.--Research has shown that
conifer forests have adequate seed densities to naturally
regenerate.\3\ Moving heavy logging equipment across burned
soils further disturbs the soil and can bury young seedlings
during logging operations, thereby inhibiting the natural
regenerative growth of the forest. In another study of post-
fire logging in the 2002 Biscuit Fire area in southwest Oregon,
researchers found that post-fire logging by removing naturally
seeded conifers and increasing surface fuel loads, can be
counterproductive to goals of forest regeneration and fuels
reduction and may conflict with ecosystem recovery goals.\4\ In
this study, researchers found that logging subsequently reduced
regeneration by 71% (767 seedlings per hectare to 224 seedlings
per hectare) due to soil disturbance and physical burial by
woody material during logging operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Shatford, et. Al. 2007. Conifer Regeneration after Forest fire
in the Klamath-Siskiyous: How Much, How Soon? Journal of Forestry,
Society of American Foresters.
\4\ Donato et. al. 2006. Post-Fire Logging Hinders Regeneration and
Increases Fire Ricks, Science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Compacts soils and impairs soil productivity.--One of the
most important elements in forest regeneration following fires
is soil stability and soil productivity. Ground-based logging
equipment compacts soils. Soil compaction adversely impacts
post-fire recovery and longterm site productivity by
eliminating pore spaces in soil that retain air, water, and
facilitate spread of fine roots. The result of decreased water
infiltration and retention is increased surface runoff,
sheetwash erosion, and subsequent sedimentation in stream.
Soils and soil productivity are irreplaceable in human time
scales. Management practices that compact soils, reduce soil
productivity, or accelerate erosion should not be
undertaken.\5\ In particular, sediment delivery to streams is
exacerbated by the road system, including failing roads, which
represent a chronic and cumulative impacts with consequences to
downstream water quality.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Beschta et al.,2004. Postfire Management on Forested Public
Lands of the Western United States. Conservation Biology.
\6\ Karr et al. 2004.The Effects of Postfire Salvage Logging on
Aquatic Ecosystems in the American West. Bioscience.
2. Increase fire risk.--Post-fire logging has been shown to
increase both fire risk and coarse downed woody fuel loads.
Post fire logging typically removes the larger diameter trees
that have the most commercial value but least flammability, but
leaves behind the smaller diameter trees and logging slash that
have little to no commercial value, but are the most flammable
fuels. In a study modeling the effects of various fuels
treatments in the Sierra Nevada, lop-and-scatter, group
selection (small clearcuts), and salvage logging operations
that left the slash and adjacent landscape untreated produced
the highest fireline intensity, heat per unit area, rate of
spread, area burned, and scorch height of all other fuels
method treatments because they increased the flammable surface
fuel load. The researcher of this study concluded that salvage
logging would make the fire situation more severe because
removing only large, standing trees will not reduce fire hazard
in Sierra Nevada forest ecosystems.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Stephens, S.Lewis. 1998. Evaluation of the Effects of
Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments on Potential Fire Behavior in Sierra
Nevada Mixed-Conifer Forests. Forest Ecology and Management 105:21-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel reduction treatments (prescribed burning or mechanical
removal) are frequently intended following post-fire logging,
but resources are often not allocated to carry out these
activities.\8\ The lowest risk strategy may be to leave dead
trees standing as long as possible allowing for the slow decay
of surface fuel. The study author concluded, ``Therefore, the
lowest fire risk strategy may be to leave dead trees standing
as long as possible (where they are less available to surface
flames), allowing for aerial decay and slow, episodic input to
surface fuel loads over decades. Our data show that post fire
logging, by removing naturally seeded conifers and increasing
surface fuel loads, can be counterproductive to goals of forest
regeneration and fuel reduction.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ R. W. Gorte, 1996. Forest Fires and Forest Health.
Congressional Research Service (Publication 95-511).
\9\ Donato et. al. 2006. Post-Fire Logging Hinders Regeneration and
Increases Fire Ricks, Science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Limit ability to adapt to a changing climate.--Every
forest changes through successional stages as forests develop,
mature, die and renew. An often overlooked and severely
underappreciated phase is the early successional or early seral
stage of a forest that follows after stand-replacing or partial
disturbances such as fire. This phase, also referred to at the
``stand-initiation stage'' in forestry, can be characterized by
high productivity of plant species (including herbs and
shrubs), complex food webs, large nutrient fluxes, and high
structural and spatial complexity. The ecological importance of
early-successional forest ecosystems (ESFEs) has received
little attention, except as a transitional phase, before trees
begin to grow. Yet, this phase of development plays a crucial
role in key ecosystem processes that sustain a forests
regrowth.\10\ Organisms that survive (e.g. seeds, spores,
rootstocks), and biological legacies (e.g. standing dead and
downed trees), are extremely important for repopulating and
restoring ecosystem functions following disturbances. Early
seral plant and shrub species provide major opportunities for
recharge of nutrient pools, such as additions to the nitrogen
pool, which is especially important after nitrogen losses from
wildfires. The important role of re-sprouting vegetation in
curbing massive losses of nitrogen was demonstrated by
experimentally clearcutting and applying herbicides in a
watershed at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (Bormann and
Likens 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Swanson et al., 2010. The Forgotten stage of forest
succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent research concludes that early successional forest
ecosystems may be more adaptable to future climate change.\11\
Given the importance of this developmental stage, management
actions should be avoided that: (1) eliminate biological
legacies, (2) shorten the duration of the early seral phase,
and (3) interfere with stand-development processes. Such
activities include intensive post-disturbance logging,
aggressive reforestation, and elimination of native plants with
herbicides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ibid.
4. Impact water quality and stream.--By themselves, the
effects of fire create few problems for aquatic populations
that have access to high-quality stream environments. Fire even
provides benefits, such as pulsed additions of spawning gravel
and wood. But where a history of environmental degradation and
fragmentation of aquatic populations already exists, fire can
threaten certain species, and post fire logging adds another
layer of stress.
After fires, soils can exhibit a water-repellent condition
that reduces the infiltration of water.\12\ These conditions
however will vary based on soils, fire intensity, the amount of
organic matter left on site and other factors. Generally,
water-repellent conditions are spatially variable and diminish
as vegetation and soils recover.\13\ In the short-term, the
adverse effects of high-severity fires--decreased infiltration,
increased overland flow, and excess sedimentation in streams--
can be greatly exacerbated by the soil disturbance caused by
salvage logging. \14\ Running heavy equipment across an area
that may experience high-intensity rains, as can be the case in
the monsoon season in the Wallow fire area, cannot be in any
manner restorative. Additionally, the steeper ground the more
likely there will be adverse effects from logging/heavy
rainfall than relatively flat ground.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ DeBano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Ffolliott, 1998. Fire's
Effects on Ecosystems. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 333 p.
\13\ Robichaud et al. 2000, Evaluating the Effectiveness of post-
fire rehabilitation treatments. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR 63.
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station., J. Letey, 2001,
Causes and Consequences of Fire Induced soil water repellency.
Hydrological Processes.
\14\ McIver, J.; and L. Starr. 2000. Environmental Effects of
Postfire Logging: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-486. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another tremendous stressor are the logging roads and
landings that are built for post fire logging operations which
cause enduring damage to soils and streams, help spread noxious
weeds, and hinder revegetation. Roads are a primary cause of
reduced water quality and of contractions in the distribution
and number of native salmonids on public lands. In fact,
reducing road density on national forests should be a primary
post-fire response. Temporary roads not built to construction
specifications can result in even greater sedimentation.
Consequently, logging activities in these areas undermine
the conservation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems and
increase the risk of extirpation for already imperiled,
fragmented, and sensitive populations. Post-fire logging
ignores many threats to aquatic resources, virtually
guaranteeing trajectories toward unsustainable ecosystems.
Halting this deterioration should be a policy priority. We
support the recommendations for protecting streams, wetlands,
and associated watersheds offered by Dr. Karr and his
associates in their paper, The Effects of Postfire Salvage
Logging on Aquatic Ecosystems in the American West. \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Karr et al. 2004The Effects of Postfire Salvage Logging on
Aquatic Ecosystems in the American West. Bioscience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations and Conclusions
The Forest Service already has the needed authorities to quickly
remove hazardous trees and address other public safety issues. Given
the range of current authorities to address public safety following
wildland fires, the provisions of S.1344 are unnecessary.
As Forest Service Chief Tidwell stated in his testimony before this
committee on August 9, 2011 ``While we support the objectives of S.
1344, we note that the Forest Service already has appropriated funds,
stewardship contracting authority, and the salvage sale fund to address
various forest management scenarios proposed in the bill.'' Chief
Tidwell further noted that the agency is currently removing hazard
trees along 245 miles of road from a projected 300 miles of road
needing treatment. The roadside hazard tree removal could result in
approximately 162,000 tons of material.
Rather, we believe that a more effective and efficient expenditure
of limited resources is to continue to support the White Mountain
Stewardship Project. Again, as Chief Tidwell noted in his testimony ``.
. .hazardous fuel reduction and thinning projects implemented between
2004 and 2011 have successfully reduced fire behavior near the Arizona
communities of Greer, Eagar, Nutrioso, and Alpine.''
In conclusions, I urge the committee to reject S. 1344 on grounds
that it is not ecologically or scientifically sound and is unnecessary
to accomplish post-fire objectives given the Forest Service already has
the authorities to deal with the most pressing needs after fire--hazard
tree removal.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony, I would be
happy to provide any follow up information the committee may require.
______
Navajo County,
Board of Supervisors,
Holbrook, AZ, August 2, 2011.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
730 Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl, Navajo County would like to express its strong
support for the Arizona Wallow Fire Recovery and Monitoring Act (S.
1344), legislation that would expedite the removal of hazard, dead and
dying trees in the community protection management areas of the Wallow
Fire. We believe that S.1344 strikes a responsible balance between
environmental and economic interests, and that salvaging these fire-
damaged trees will help in the prevention of future fires by reducing
the hazardous fuels on the ground, improving the overall health and
recovery of the forest, and providing an economic benefit to the
communities of northeastern Arizona a by putting the wood to good use.
As you know, Navajo County has been an adamant supporter and
participant with the White Mountains Stewardship and Four Forest
Restoration Initiative. These commercial thinning projects are the key
to the restoration of the 2.4 million acres of ponderosa pine
throughout Arizona, and the mechanism by which we can end these
catastrophic and unnatural wildfires from occurring in the future.
I understand that S. 1344 will be presented in the Public Lands and
Forests Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee on, August 3, 2011. Please add Navajo County as one of the
voices that support S.1344, and please let me know if there is anything
that I may be able to do to support this legislation and speed the
process along. The removal of these stands of timber must be completed
within the next 18 months to preserve the economic value of timber for
commercial harvest. We desperately need a stream of revenues from these
salvage sales that can offset the costs for the restoration treatments
in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest.
Regards,
David Tenney,
Chairman.
______
Board of Supervisors of Apache County,
St. Johns, AZ, July 28, 2011.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, 730 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Clearing Red Tape for Salvage Logging and Recovery of Our Forests
Dear Senator Kyl: I am writing today to express my support for S,
1344, the Arizona Wallow Fire Recovery and Monitoring Act. I am
confident that this legislation will help implement various programs
which will remove hazardous and dead trees within our Apache County
communities. Many management and forest health practices were tried in
the past and ignored over the last couple of decades. This has led to
many of the conditions in our forests to now be at a critical state of
disrepair and massive amounts of dead and dying landscape, insect
infestation and a main contributor to our tremendous fire conditions.
Cattle grazing and logging need to be restored throughout our areas
along with competent forest management throughout our great country.
Legislation needs to be established so that the work of recovering
fire-damaged materials and removal of tree hazards can immediately
begin. Large amounts of soil degradation, loss of habitat and flooding
have begun in our local areas. The flooding has severely exacted a
heavy toll on Apache County residents and county resources.
Infrastructure like bridges, drainages and roadways have been damaged
by massive water overflows to homes and other structures during our
monsoon season, which has just begun. Business interruptions occur as
well in our heavily effected flood regions leading to even more
economic losses which, when all combined, will have catastrophic and
cumulative effects for years to come.
We all have an opportunity ahead of us to learn by previous forest
management mistakes and turn the Wallow Fire disaster into an
opportunity for the good of all.
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the Apache County
residents, and especially those who have been impacted by the Wallow
Fire.
Sincerely,
R. John Lee,
Supervisor, District III.
______
Town of Springerville,
Springerville, AZ, July 28, 2011.
To Whom It My Concern:
On behalf of the town of Springerville I am writing this letter in
support of Senate Bill 1344, this act cited as ``Arizona Wallow Fire
and Recovery Act''. This Bill is a start in a long recovery process for
the communities of the White Mountains and is an integral part in the
Town's of Springerville and Eagar s (Round Valley) Resolution No. 2011-
R009, attachment and Resolution 2011-R010* that is being presented in
support of Salvage Logging at the August 3, 2011 town council meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Documents have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Town of Springerville hopes you will consider passing Senate
Bill 1344 and will review our Resolution, as our communities have been
dramatically impacted by the Wallow Fire.
Sincerely,
Eric Baca,
Mayor.
______
Arizona House of Representatives,
Phoenix, AZ, July 13, 2011.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senator, 241 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senator, 730 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Distinguished Senators: The Arizona House of Representatives would
like to commit its strong support for U.S. Senate bill 1344, the
Arizona Wallow Fire Recovery and Monitoring Act, introduced by Senator
Jon Kyl. This new forest health bill will expedite the removal of dead
and dying trees following Arizona's worst wildfire in state history.
S. 1344 strikes a responsible balance between environmental and
economic interests. It will help prevent future; fires and:provide an
economic benefit which Arizona desperately needs right now.These
projects would include hazardous, dead and dying tree removal.
Self-proclaimed environmental groups cannot-slow down this process
or the economic benefit of salvage wiil be permanently lost: The Rodeo-
Chediski salvage opportunities were lost due to environmental
roadblocks and the remaining wood has no economic value to anyone. Had
Arizona been able to clean/salvage the damaged and destroyed trees, we
would have had economic growth.
As you know, here at the State Capitol Representatives Brenda
Barton and Chester Crandell have brought attention to this issue
through the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Forest Management in
which Congressman Paul Gosar testified at the first hearing.We look
forward to working with.you in any capacity we can to make sure the
mistakes that led to these catastrophic fires dp not happen again.
Sincerely,*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Other signatures have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Tobin,
Speaker of the House, District 1.
______
City of Scottsdale,
Scottsdale, AZ, July 21, 2011.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, 730 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: I am writing today to express strong support for
S. 1344, the Arizona Wallow Fire Recovery and Monitoring Act.
If enacted, I believe this legislation will put into place an
important process to initiate the removal of hazardous, dead, and dying
trees in community protection management areas within the Arizona
Wallow Fire--one of the most dramatic and devastating wildfires in
Arizona's history. Also of importance, S. 1344 provides a mechanism to
create new revenues that will be used to treat standing forests to help
prevent another catastrophic wildfire in Arizona.
I know it is important to expedite the passage of this legislation
to the fullest extent possible so that the work of recovering fire-
damaged materials and the removal of tree hazards can begin before
these materials lose much of their remaining economic value. The loss
of value due to unnecessary delays will have a direct impact on the
level of funds available for the much-needed forest restoration
treatments in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. I am very
supportive of forest restoration projects to improve the health of our
western forests.
As you may recall from our recent phone conversation, I am
currently working with other local officials to create a resolution
that will ask the Congress for assistance in enacting large-scale
forest restoration efforts to improve forest health and reduce the
risks from catastrophic wildfires. Support for this federal legislation
is specifically noted in the resolution. All ninety-one Arizona cities
and towns will have the opportunity to vote to support this resolution
during the annual meeting of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns in
August.
The forest health problem is widespread and is affecting wildlife
habitat, watershed management, and increasing the dangers to human life
and property from catastrophic wildfire events. I applaud your tireless
work to ensure that our forests receive the proper restoration
treatments that are so badly needed.
Again, I would like to thank you for your efforts on behalf of
Arizona's residents, and especially those who have been impacted by the
Wallow Fire.
Sincerely,
W.J. ``Jim'' Lane,
Mayor.