[Senate Hearing 115-482] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 115-482 PENDING LEGISLATION ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 32 S. 468 S. 941 S. 90 S. 614 S. 1149 S. 357 S. 785 S. 1230 S. 436 S. 837 S. 1271 S. 467 S. 884 S. 1548 __________ JULY 26, 2017 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 26-870 WASHINGTON : 2020 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine ROB PORTMAN, Ohio TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada ------ Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining MIKE LEE, Chairman JOHN BARRASSO RON WYDEN JAMES E. RISCH DEBBIE STABENOW JEFF FLAKE AL FRANKEN STEVE DAINES JOE MANCHIN III CORY GARDNER MARTIN HEINRICH LAMAR ALEXANDER MAZIE K. HIRONO JOHN HOEVEN CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO BILL CASSIDY LUTHER STRANGE Colin Hayes, Staff Director Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources Policy Director Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- OPENING STATEMENTS Page Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Utah........................................................... 1 Barrasso, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming................. 4 Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana.................. 5 Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska.... 7 WITNESSES Tester, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 105 Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............ 111 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah................... 124 Ruhs, John, Acting Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.................... 127 ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 29 Palms Inn: Letter for the Record........................................ 252 Advocates for Access to Public Lands: Letter for the Record........................................ 193 Agenda........................................................... 2 Alabama Hills Stewardship Group: Letter for the Record........................................ 194 Alaska Federation of Natives: Statement for the Record..................................... 12 Alaska Miners Association: Letter for the Record........................................ 196 Alaska State Legislature, 2006: Legislative Resolve No. 37 for the Record.................... 37 Alaska Wilderness League, et al.: Letter for the Record........................................ 197 Aloysius, Jr., Mrs. Jake A.: Letter for the Record........................................ 82 American Exploration & Mining Association: Email and Letter for the Record.............................. 199 American Fly Fishing Trade Association: Letter for the Record........................................ 201 American Forest Resource Council: Letter for the Record........................................ 202 American Rivers: Letter for the Record........................................ 206 Americans for Responsible Recreational Access (ARRA), et al.: Letter for the Record........................................ 229 Amik, David: Email for the Record......................................... 208 Anderson, Jr., Nels: Letter for the Record........................................ 34 Andrews Jr., John B.: Letter for the Record........................................ 57 Ark Land: Letter for the Record........................................ 209 Backcountry Hunters & Anglers: Letter for the Record........................................ 211 Barrasso, Hon. John: Opening Statement............................................ 4 Bran, David A.: Letter for the Record........................................ 49 Brown, Darrell T.: Letter for the Record........................................ 80 Business for Montana's Outdoors: Letter for the Record........................................ 213 California Wilderness Coalition (CalWild): Letter for the Record........................................ 248 Statement for the Record..................................... 249 Casamassa, Glenn: Opening Statement............................................ 111 Written Testimony............................................ 114 Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 188 CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC: Letter for the Record........................................ 265 Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and Tanana Chiefs Conference: Resolutions/Letter for the Record............................ 30 City of Highland (CA): Letter for the Record........................................ 255 Resolution 2016-006 for the Record........................... 256 City of Redlands (CA): Letter for the Record........................................ 259 City of St. George (Utah): Letter for the Record........................................ 215 Conservation Lands Foundation: Letter for the Record........................................ 233 Daines, Hon. Steve: Opening Statement............................................ 5 Photo--Chico Hot Springs..................................... 6 Dewey, Valerie J.: Letter for the Record........................................ 65 Earthjustice: Memorandum for the Record.................................... 216 East Valley Water District: Letter for the Record........................................ 263 Endangered Habitats League: Letter for the Record........................................ 264 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne: Statement for the Record..................................... 218 California Protection and Recreation Act of 2017--Overview Map........................................................ 227 List of Letters and Statements in support of S. 32........... 228 List of Letters and Statements in support of S. 357.......... 253 Santa Ana River Wash Plan Subcomponents Map.................. 268 Frank, Albert: Letter for the Record........................................ 54 Friends of Big Morongo Canyon Preserve: Letter for the Record........................................ 246 Friends of El Mirage: Letter for the Record........................................ 244 Friends of Jawbone: Letter for the Record........................................ 238 Friends of the Inyo: Letter for the Record addressed to Senators Murkowski and Cantwell dated July 19, 2017............................... 240 Letter for the Record addressed to Senator Feinstein dated April 10, 2017............................................. 242 Glover, Everett J.: Letter for the Record........................................ 74 Graves, John W.: Letter for the Record........................................ 77 Gray, James: Letter for the Record........................................ 50 Greater Yellowstone Coalition: Letter for the Record dated July 24, 2016.................... 269 Copper Sulfide Mining Fact Sheet, Earthworks............. 270 U.S. Copper Porphyry Mines Report, Earthworks, July 2012. 272 Letter for the Record dated July 24, 2016.................... 306 Center for Science in Public Participation: Memorandum regarding Emigrant Prospect, MT, and Lucky Minerals, dated September 9, 2015................................ 307 Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology: Baseline Water- Quality Investigation, Emigrant Creek Watershed, South- Central Montana, 2016.................................. 313 Letter for the Record dated July 24, 2016.................... 335 Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions in Environmental Impact Statements by Kuipers, Maest, MacHardy and Lawson, 2006.............................. 336 Letter for the Record dated August 2, 2017................... 563 U.S. Gold Mines: Spills & Failures Report, Earthworks, July 2017.............................................. 564 Letter for the Record dated August 2, 2017................... 628 Selected press clippings regarding proposed gold mines in Park County, MT: Article by Alex Philp in the Billings Gazette dated August 5, 2017, titled ``Guest opinion: Daines holds up Yellowstone Gateway Act''.............................. 634 Article in the Billings Gazette dated August 1, 2017, titled ``Gazette opinion: Time to protect Paradise Valley''............................................... 636 Article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated July 30, 2017, titled ``Tester's bill too important for platitudes''........................................... 639 Article by David McCumber in the Billings Gazette dated July 30, 2017, titled ``Mine near Yellowstone gets DEQ approval for preliminary drilling''.................... 640 Article by the Associated Press in the Billings Gazette dated July 26, 2017, titled ``Gold mining proposal near Yellowstone advances''............................................. 643 Article by Elliott D. Woods in The Guardian dated July 16, 2017, titled `` `More valuable than gold': Yellowstone businesses prepare to fight mining''....... 645 Article by Michael Wright in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated June 22, 2017, titled ``Paradise Valley mine opponents pressuring Daines to support Tester's ban''.. 649 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated June 20, 2017, titled ``Locals seek action from Steve Daines on fed mining ban''............................. 651 Article by Tyson Nunley in the Billings Gazette dated June 9, 2017, titled ``Protect Yellowstone River''..... 653 Article in the Billings Gazette dated June 3, 2017, titled ``Gazette opinion: Permanent protection for Paradise''............................................. 654 Article by Sabina Strauss, Richard Parks, and Nathan Varley in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated June 3, 2017, titled ``Delegation must keep up fight against mine near YNP''........................................ 657 Article by Gillian Cleary in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated May 18, 2017, titled ``Thanks to Sen. Tester for his stance on Yellowstone''............................ 659 Article by John Salazar in the Billings Gazette dated May 6, 2017, titled ``Yellowstone more valuable than gold'' 660 Article by Justin Post in The Livingston Enterprise dated May 2, 2017, titled ``Enterprise Editorial: Ryan Zinke's chance''....................................... 661 Article by Rich Hohne in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated April 30, 2017, titled ``Time for Montanans to stand up for our Yellowstone''......................... 663 Article by Sabina V. Strauss in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated April 29, 2017, titled ``Thanks to Sen. Tester for protecting Yellowstone''.................... 663 Article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated April 28, 2017, titled ``Tester lauded for standing up for YNP''. 664 Article by Brett French in the Billings Gazette dated April 25, 2017, titled ``Tester announces legislation to ban mining near Paradise Valley, Yellowstone National Park''........................................ 666 Article by Ryan Smith in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated April 8, 2017, titled ``Montanans must stand against mines near Yellowstone''....................... 669 Article by Nate Schweber for Parts Unknown dated April 4, 2017, titled ``Montana: Yellowstone's Mining Battle''.. 671 Article by Mike Garcia in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated February 19, 2017, titled ``Protection of Yellowstone River should be extended''................. 676 Article by Ben Bulis in the Billings Gazette dated February 18, 2017, titled ``Guest opinion: Protect Montana's Paradise Valley water''...................... 677 Article by Michael Wright in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated January 19, 2017, titled ``Federal officials hold open house on mineral withdrawal in Livingston''....... 679 Article by Susan Johnson in the Montana Standard dated December 11, 2016, titled ``Congress should protect Paradise''............................................. 681 Article by Diane Bristol in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated December 17, 2016, titled ``Why would we ever put Yellowstone at risk?''................................. 682 Article by Bob and Kitzy Parker in the Billings Gazette dated December 17, 2016, titled ``Why Paradise deserves protection''........................................... 684 Article by Tom Bowler in the Billings Gazette dated December 11, 2016, titled ``Mining projects were not a good idea in Paradise Valley''......................... 685 Article by Justin Post in The Livingston Enterprise dated November 23, 2016, titled ``Locals to thank for mining decision''............................................. 686 Article by Brett French in the Billings Gazette dated December 12, 2016, titled ``Gazette opinion: Protecting Montana's Paradise''................................... 687 Article by Michael Wright in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated November 21, 2016, titled ``Obama Administration blocks new mining claims on 30,000 acres in Paradise Valley''............................................... 690 Article by Bill Stoddart in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated December 7, 2016, titled ``Preserving special places can't be about politics''....................... 694 Article by Sabina V. Strauss in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated November 30, 2016, titled ``Jewell's mining block should be made permanent''................ 695 Article by Steven Koehler in the Billings Gazette dated November 9, 2016, titled ``Guest opinion: Don't mine on Yellowstone's border''................................. 696 Article by Kristi Vance in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated November 9, 2016, titled ``Mining near Emigrant all risk and no reward''............................... 698 Article by Brett French in the Billings Gazette dated October 9, 2016, titled ``Mining the Mountains of Paradise: Struggles of the New West coalesce next to Yellowstone''.......................................... 699 Article by Brant Oswald in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated August 24, 2016, titled ``Paradise Valley is no place for a gold mine''................................ 709 Article by Dan Vermillion in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated August 17, 2016, titled ``Gold mine not worth putting Yellowstone at risk''.......................... 711 Article by Andrew Field in the Billings Gazette dated August 6, 2016, titled ``Guest opinion: Let's protect Paradise Valley's greatest treasures''................. 712 Article by Dylan Brown for E&E News dated August 3, 2016, titled ``Yellowstone: Local group battles 2 mining projects just outside park''........................... 715 Article in the Billings Gazette dated July 25, 2016, titled ``Gazette opinion: Protect Park County's outdoor assets''............................................... 720 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 1, 2016, titled ``Rep. Zinke sides with opponents of mining near park''.................................. 723 Article by Dwight Harriman in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 7, 2016, titled ``We can't keep doing this'' 725 Article by Michael Wright in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated April 12, 2016, titled ``Company asked to resubmit mining application on Yellowstone border''.... 727 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated March 25, 2016, titled ``Business owners form new group opposing mining near Yellowstone''..................... 731 Article by Samantha Hill in The Livingston Enterprise dated March 1, 2016, titled ``Park County criticizes Crevice mine project in Jardine, DEQ takes comments''.. 732 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated Novem- ber 9, 2015, titled ``Comments on Emigrant drilling plan made public''............................................... 733 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated August 20, 2015, titled ``Emigrant Peak mine exploration: Thousands comment on company's plan before deadline''............................................. 735 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Bill Burris dated August 20, 2015, titled ``Exploratory drilling in geothermal resource area is idiotic''...... 737 Article by Bill Stoddart in The Livingston Enterprise dated August 19, 2015, titled ``The Emigrant Creek Mine is a bad deal''........................................ 739 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by John Usher dated August 18, 2015, titled ``In favor of exploratory drilling''................................. 741 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Peter D. Fox dated August 14, 2015, titled ``Community Foundation opposes Emigrant mine exploration proposal'' 742 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated August 11, 2015, titled ``Extensive review sought for mine exploration plan''................................ 744 Article by Justin Post in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 23, 2015, titled ``Right decision to extend mineral exploration comment''.......................... 745 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 21, 2015, titled ``Comment period extended on drilling proposal''.................................... 747 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 16, 2015, titled ``Thousands comment on Emigrant mine pro- posal''................................................ 749 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Anthony Eaton dated July 15, 2015, titled ``Too many risks from Lucky Minerals' proposed exploratory drilling''............................................. 750 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Susan and Jeff Bridges dated July 14, 2015, titled ``Mine exploration would be a disaster for the area''.. 752 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Michelle Uberuaga dated July 13, 2015, titled ``Stop this project before it even gets started''............. 753 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Gary and Lisa Miller dated July 13, 2015, titled ``There is hope for those opposing mining operation in Paradise Valley''............................................... 755 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by William C. Edwards dated July 13, 2015, titled ``Comments on Lucky Minerals' proposed exploratory drilling''............................................. 757 Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Shaun Dykes dated July 13, 2015, titled ``Jobs and the environment don't have to be mutually exclusive''...... 758 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 10, 2015, titled ``Emigrant Peak Mine Exploration: About 140 people attend meeting on company's proposal'' 760 Article by Justin Post in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 10, 2015, titled ``There's a place for mines, and it's not on Emigrant Peak''............................ 762 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 9, 2015, titled ``Emigrant mine plan raising questions, concerns''.................................. 764 Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated July 1, 2015, titled ``Groups discuss, express concerns on proposed mine exploration''......................... 766 A Profile of Socioeconomic Measures, Park County, MT......... 768 Map of ``Elk Migrations of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' by the Wyoming Migration Iniative dated September 18, 2015 (DRAFT)................................. 813 Guthert, David: Statement for the Record..................................... 100 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: Opening Statement............................................ 124 Written Testimony............................................ 126 Henry, Ray: Letter for the Record........................................ 75 Hispanic Access Foundation: Letter for the Record........................................ 247 Huff, Patrick: Letter for the Record........................................ 42 Hunter, Jr., Percy: Letter for the Record........................................ 47 Huntington, Wayne: Letter for the Record........................................ 59 Inland Action: Letter for the Record........................................ 267 Jones, Roger M.: Letter for the Record........................................ 55 Joshua Green Corporation: Letter for the Record........................................ 814 Joshua Tree National Park Association: Letter for the Record........................................ 251 Kake Tribal Corporation: Letter for the Record........................................ 101 Koehler, Steven: Letter for the Record........................................ 816 Koonaloak, George H.: Letter for the Record........................................ 64 KS Wild, et al.: Letter for the Record........................................ 818 List of Supporters of Wild Rogue Legislation................. 822 Report titled ``The Economic Value of Rogue River Salmon'' commissioned by the Save the Wild Rogue Campaign, dated January 2009............................................... 879 Report titled ``Regional Economic Impacts of Recreation on the Wild and Scenic Rogue River'' commissioned by the Save the Wild Rogue Campaign, dated January 2009................ 907 Kukowski, Dave: Letter for the Record........................................ 97 Kukowski, Michael and David: Statement for the Record..................................... 98 Lee, Hon. Mike: Opening Statement............................................ 1 Lindoff, Jr., James M.: Letter for the Record........................................ 79 Littlefield, Michael: Letter for the Record........................................ 46 Lucky Minerals Inc.: Letter for the Record........................................ 951 Maxey, Clarence: Letter for the Record........................................ 103 McKinley Sr., Alfred: Letter for the Record........................................ 68 Mills, Anthony Gilbert: Letter for the Record........................................ 70 Mills, George N.: Letter for the Record........................................ 71 Mills, Robert D.: Letter for the Record........................................ 48 Mojave Desert Land Trust: Letter for the Record........................................ 237 Monroe, Nick: Letter for the Record........................................ 43 Montana Wildlife Federation: Letter for the Record........................................ 954 Morris, Jake E.: Letter for the Record........................................ 67 Murkowski, Hon. Lisa: Opening Statement............................................ 7 List of Letters, Statements, and Resolutions in support of S. 785, S. 884, S. 1149....................................... 10 National Parks Conserviation Association: Letter for the Record regarding S. 32 dated January 11, 2017. 231 Letter for the Record regarding S. 32 dated July 25, 2017.... 956 Letter for the Record regarding S. 941....................... 957 National Parks Conservation Association, et al.: Letter for the Record........................................ 958 Native Village of Barrow, Inupiat Traditional Government: Resolution #2009-18 for the Record........................... 21 Neimeyer, A. Michael: Statement for the Record..................................... 961 Neketa, Nick: Letter for the Record........................................ 53 Organized Village of Kake: Resolution #2009-06 for the Record........................... 19 Parnell, Frank: Letter for the Record........................................ 76 Paul, Sr., Ronald L.: Letter for the Record........................................ 73 (The) Pew Charitable Trusts: Letter for the Record regarding S. 32........................ 239 Statement for the Record regarding S. 32 and S. 1548......... 963 Phillips, John: Letter for the Record........................................ 52 Pilot Point Traditional Council: Resolution for the Record.................................... 20 Powers, Marlys A.: Letter for the Record........................................ 41 Prett, Willis P.: Letter for the Record........................................ 72 QuadState Local Governments Authority: Statement for the Record..................................... 966 Robertson's: Letter for the Record........................................ 266 Ruhs, John: Opening Statement............................................ 127 Written Testimony............................................ 129 Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 189 San Bernardino County (CA): Letter for the Record........................................ 254 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District: Letter for the Record........................................ 260 Resolution 1036 for the Record............................... 261 Sealaska Corporatioon: Letter for the Record........................................ 25 Semaken, Harold J.: Letter for the Record........................................ 45 Sifsof, Lawrence D.: Letter for the Record........................................ 81 Silas, Franklin R.: Letter for the Record........................................ 63 Sitka Tribe of Alaska: Resolution #2009-85 for the Record........................... 17 Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: Letter for the Record........................................ 969 Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance: Letter for the Record........................................ 971 Strong, James B.: Letter for the Record........................................ 35 Student Conservation Association: Letter for the Record........................................ 235 Suckling, Theodore D.: Letter for the Record........................................ 44 Sullivan, Hon. Dan: Statement for the Record..................................... 973 Tanana Chiefs Conference: Letter/Resolution for the Record............................. 27 Tester, Hon. Jon: Opening Statement............................................ 105 Photo 1--Chico Hot Springs................................... 106 Photo 2--Outside Yellowstone National Park (near Gardiner, Montana)................................................... 108 Photo 3--Off Highway 89 (Paradise Valley, Montana)........... 110 Thomas, Sherman A.: Letter for the Record........................................ 66 Thurneau, Vernon A.: Statement for the Record..................................... 99 Tobuk, Homer: Letter for the Record........................................ 40 Traditional Council of Togiak: Resolution #2009-06 for the Record........................... 24 Trautner, John J.: Statement for the Record..................................... 83 Trout Unlimited: Letters for the Record....................................... 975 Ugashik Traditional Village Council: Resolution #2009-11 for the Record........................... 23 U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Statement for the Record regarding S. 1149................... 981 U.S. Department of the Interior: Statement for the Record regarding S. 1230................... 171 Washington County (Utah) Commission: Resolution No. R-2017-2219................................... 982 Washington County (Utah) Water Conservancy District: Letter for the Record........................................ 984 Wells, Bryan, Sally & family: Letter for the Record........................................ 985 White, Sr., David: Letter for the Record........................................ 78 White, Sr., Frank C.: Letter for the Record........................................ 69 Wild Rogue Outfitters Association, et al.: Letter for the Record........................................ 988 (The) Wilderness Society: Letter for the Record........................................ 990 Williams, Norma J.: Letter for the Record........................................ 62 Yellowstone Gateway Business Coalition: Letter for the Record........................................ 994 Park County Commission Letter................................ 996 Yellowstone Gateway Business Coalition Membership List as of July 17, 2017.............................................. 998 Report by Dr. Larry Swanson titled ``Key Trends, Dependencies, Strengths and Vulnerabilities in Park County, Montana, and its Area Economy,'' April 2016................ 1004 Report titled ``Park County's Growing Economy: Southwest Montana region uniquely positioned for continued economic success,'' 2016............................................ 1061 ---------- The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can be found on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/ public/index.cfm/2017/7/subcommittee-hearing-on-various-bills PENDING LEGISLATION ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2017 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH Senator Lee [presiding]. The Subcommittee will come to order. This is our first legislative hearing in the Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee during this Congress. The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony regarding 15 separate legislative proposals pending before this Subcommittee. Because of the large number of bills on today's agenda, I am not going to go through all of them in their entirety, but the complete agenda will, of course, be included in the record. [The complete agenda referred to follows:] UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining July 26, 2017 Hearing regarding Pending Legislation AGENDAS. 32, California Desert Protection and Recreation Act S. 90, Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act S. 357, Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act S. 436, San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act S. 467, Mohave County Federal Land Management Act S. 468, Historic Routes Preservation Act S. 614, Recreation and Public Purposes Act Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act S. 785, Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act S. 837, Southern Utah Open OHV Areas Act S. 884, Small Miners Waiver Act S. 941, Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act S. 1149, To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to repeal a provision limiting the export of timber harvested from land conveyed to the Kake Tribal Corporation S. 1230, Water Rights Protection Act S. 1271, Fowler and Boskoff Peaks Designation Act S. 1548, Oregon Wildlands Act Senator Lee. About half of these bills were considered in this Committee in the last Congress. We are going to update the record on these bills. The remaining bills have not yet been considered. I would like to comment on three of these bills starting with S. 837, the Southern Utah Open OHV Areas Act, sponsored by my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch. This bill preserves recreational access to nearly 20,000 acres in the Hurricane Sand Dunes in Washington County, Utah. A unique blend of slick rock terrain and expansive sand dunes makes this an ideal spot for off-highway vehicle riders, but federal land managers have significantly, and often unjustifiably, reduced recreational access in the area over the past two decades. S. 837 will guarantee that local residents and tourists from across the country continue to have open access to this land. Apart from what this bill does, it is also a good example of how federal land management decisions ought to be made. This bill is the result of locally-driven collaborative processes that empower local stakeholders instead of federal bureaucrats. You will hear more about this bill from Senator Hatch in a few minutes. The second bill I would like to highlight is S. 1230, Senator Barrasso's Water Rights Protection Act, which prohibits federal land managers from requiring water rights transfers as a condition of granting or renewing permits and leases on public lands. This bill is necessary to stop federal intrusions into long-established state water authority and to protect private water rights from an increasingly aggressive Federal Government. In recent years, the Forest Service has attempted to strong-arm farmers and ranchers by threatening to withhold grazing and other land use permits unless the farmers and ranchers agreed to give up on the water rights. Moreover, the Forest Service's 2014 Groundwater Resource Management Directive sought to usurp state authority over groundwater resources in the National Forest System. The Forest Service rescinded that directive, but the agency continues to express a desire for more control over water resources. The Water Rights Protection Act would end this unwarranted encroachment on state and private water rights. Finally, I would like to highlight S. 468, Senator Flake's Historic Routes Preservation Act, which establishes a much- needed process for resolving disagreements over road claims under R.S. 2477. In 1866, Congress granted public rights-of-way across federal lands that were not already reserved for other uses. Many of these roads, known as R.S. 2477 roads, are still in use today and provide recreational access and economic opportunities for local communities. However, because the original law did not require documentation of these roads, disputes have arisen between local governments and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as to who owns the rights-of-way. This has led to costly drawn-out legal battles in court. My home State of Utah spent years trying to negotiate with the Federal Government to settle its R.S. 2477 claims. Its efforts ultimately failed because the Federal Government forced the state to prove its claims in court. The state has since filed 22 lawsuits to settle nearly 12,000 road claims. The Historic Routes Preservation Act would end this inefficient, unfair, and wasteful system by giving local governments a well- defined administrative process to document ownership of their R.S. 2477 rights-of-way which Congress granted to them over 150 years ago. I would also like to note that some of the bills before the Committee today involve various land designations and large mineral withdrawals. The United States has one of the longest permitting processes for mining in the world and vast amounts of federal land are already off-limits. It should come as no surprise that our country is at least 50 percent import dependent for 50 minerals and 100 percent import dependent for 20 minerals. This makes little sense when we have been blessed with an abundance of these minerals right here at home. Before we withdraw more lands from mining, we should look for opportunities to open other lands that can be developed safely and responsibly. With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being here as well as Senator Hatch and Senator Tester, both of whom are here to talk today about their bills. We would be turning to Senator Wyden right now for his opening remarks, but I am not seeing Senator Wyden. Okay, with that I am going to turn to Senator Barrasso, who needs to make his opening statement before he has to go chair another hearing. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Lee. I appreciate you holding this important hearing. I want to thank Mr. Casamassa as well as Mr. Ruhs for being here today to testify. There are a number of important bills on the agenda and I would just like to echo what you had said, Mr. Chairman, by highlighting the bill that I have introduced, the Water Rights Protection Act. S. 1230, the Water Rights Protection Act, seeks to protect Western communities, farmers, ranchers, and people who rely on privately held water rights for their livelihood from blatant federal overreach. In recent years, Mr. Chairman, we have seen the Federal Government repeatedly try to circumvent longstanding state water law and seize private water rights. This is absolute federal overreach. It violates private property rights. One such example, and you mentioned it Mr. Chairman, that many of us here today are very familiar with is the Groundwater Resource Management Plan proposed by the Forest Service in 2014. This plan would have imposed unjust water use restrictions and denied agricultural and recreational activities that communities depend upon for their economic viability. All of this would have been done without receiving input from the impacted communities. The proposal has since been withdrawn due to the blatant overreach in authority. S. 1230 will require any future land use agreements to recognize states' longstanding authority related to protecting, evaluating and allocating groundwater resources. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you including S. 1230 on the hearing agenda today and the schedule, and I look forward to hearing testimony from the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I am also told that Senator Daines has another hearing to go to. Did you want to make a statement? STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA Senator Daines. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Wyden for holding this hearing on a very important piece of legislation for Montana. This is Senator Tester's Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act. In fact, as I look at the chart the Senator has brought I am getting homesick. Chico Hot Springs is where I spent my senior prom, taking the Griswold station wagon right there back in 1979. So it is a very special place in Montana. And in fact, the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness is in the distance. That is where my wife and I and family spend a lot of time backpacking on top of some of those peaks that you see in the horizon. This legislation is important as it would protect an area in Montana that we call Paradise Valley. It is called Paradise Valley for a reason. This area is home to some renowned outdoor recreation opportunities: world-class fly fishing--if you come by my office you will see me holding a nice, big, brown trout caught on the river, the Yellowstone River, that runs right by Chico Hot Springs; hiking; rafting; and hunting. My son killed his first elk just north of that picture. I can just about see the hillside it happened on. [The picture referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Daines. This is a very special place. It is home to many businesses that serve those that are visiting Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding area. Simply stated, the economy in this area thrives on our outdoor way of life. I am committed to working with Senator Tester and local stakeholders on this important piece of legislation. My staff and I have had at least 30 meetings, discussions with residents, local stakeholders' groups, as well as with Senator Tester and his team. I thank everyone that has participated in these meetings. It is important to me that in any major land decision like this one the local community stands firmly behind it. The county commissioners, the local elected officials, local businesses, and outdoor businesses like the fly fishing industry support a withdrawal. I can say with confidence that after the meetings I have had that most all the community does stand with this idea of a withdrawal. The opposition to mining in the Paradise Valley contrasts to support for mines we have in other parts of our state, like the Montanore and Rock Creek in the northwestern part of Montana. That is in Lincoln County. Up in that region, on the other hand, the county commissioners, the local elected officials, the businesses, and the school system support these mines. In fact, we have the Stillwater mine. If you look at that chart, the Stillwater mine actually is adjacent to that same wilderness area, just a little further to the east and a little further to the north. It is a major economic driver in Montana. The mine, sitting immediately adjacent to a wilderness area, produces platinum and palladium. In fact, it is the only palladium producer in the U.S. It has wide local and statewide support and has operated on the edge of this wilderness area for decades, proving that mines can be environmentally friendly and enjoy local support. These are high-paying jobs, and it is important that our state continues to support them. So in Montana, as I have often said, it is a blend of John Denver and Merle Haggard. That is the Montana melody. I look forward to further exploring this legislation later today. Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Daines. Chairman Murkowski. STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to a few bills that are on the docket this morning. And thank you for your leadership on the Subcommittee for scheduling this hearing. The first bill that we have before the Subcommittee this morning on the Alaska side is S. 785. This is the Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act. This is something that I have been working on with Congressman Young. He has been leading on the House side for years, and I have picked this up over here. Now I am very proud that Senator Sullivan is taking the lead on it, and I am co-sponsoring it. Our bill amends legislation that Congress passed back in 1998 to convey land to Alaska Natives who served in our U.S. military during the Vietnam War. There were many who served who did not receive the lands that they had been promised under the 1906 Native Allotment Act simply because they were outside of the country. They could not complete their applications. We passed the 1998 bill to remedy this problem, but of the 3,000 Alaska Natives who were eligible for lands, there were only about 243 allotments that have actually been conveyed. And the delay is due to three issues: first, Alaska Native Veterans could not select lands unless they had used them for subsistence for five years prior to passage; second, the Act did not cover the entire span of the Vietnam War; and third, lands withdrawn by the Federal Government were not eligible for selection. So the result then is that you have many Alaska Native Vietnam Vets that had very few lands to select from and still decades later have not received their allotments. This is a difficult inequity that is really hard to comprehend, much less accept. We have been working with Secretary Zinke on this. And again, I really applaud Senator Sullivan for the efforts that he has made to advance this. S. 785 would solve these problems and properly honor our Alaska Native Veterans for their service to our country during the Vietnam War. The second bill, S. 884, is the Small Miners Waiver bill. What happens is when small miners apply for a waiver from fees under the Mining Law of 1872, they have no right to appeal if they lose their claims or if anyone makes a mistake during the application process. Most federal agencies provide permit holders notice if they are about to forfeit a valuable right. For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) gives all amateur radio license holders notice when their permits are about to expire. But at the BLM, if a miner's fees or their paperwork is even a day late in arriving they forfeit their claims and, in many cases, this is their livelihoods and they have no chance for an appeal. I think that this is unfair. I do not think it was the intent of the claim fee waiver process that Congress put in place in 1993. That is why my bill will finally provide our small miners with due process and reinstate a handful of claims that clearly deserve to be restored. The last bill that I want to address is S. 1149 which would repeal the timber export ban for the Village of Kake in southeast Alaska. Back in 2000, Congress approved a complex land exchange involving the Kake Village Native Corporation. In return for giving up timberlands in the village as watershed, the corporation was to receive replacement lands plus compensation to make up the difference in value of the lands exchanged. At the time, Kake was prohibited from exporting its timber in order to ensure that there be a timber supply for the local sawmills. But it is the only Alaska Native Corporation that is unable to export its timber into higher value markets. This ban has proven to be unworkable and discriminatory because the timber the Corporation gained in the land exchange is only valuable for sale in export markets. So what we do with this bill is allow Kake citizens to effectively be treated like all other Alaska Natives to gain financial benefit for the acreage that they gave back to the Forest Service. The bill will not harm Alaska jobs in any way. It just does the right thing by lifting this lone export ban. Mr. Chairman, I do hope that all of these bills can become law this Congress. I have letters and statements in support for all three that I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record. While I recognize the Administration is still reviewing the Kake bill, I certainly appreciate its supportive testimony on our Vietnam Veterans Allotment bill and the Small Miners Waiver Relief Act. So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy this morning. Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Anything you submit will be admitted into the record, without objection. [The information referred to follows:] Letters and statements in support of the three Alaska bills to be submitted for the record: S. 785: Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act: Statement from Nelson Angapak Sr., representing the Alaska Federation of Natives Resolution, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, #2009-85 Resolution, Organized Village of Kake, #2009-06 Resolution, Pilot Point Traditional Council, Sophie Abyo, Tribal President Resolution, Native Village of Barrow, lnupiat Traditional Government, #2009-18 Resolution, Ugashik Traditional Village Council, #2009-11 Resolution, Traditional Council of Togiak, #2009-06 Statement, Anthony Mallott, representing Sealaska Native Regional Corp. Resolution/Letter, Victor Joseph, President, Tanana Chiefs Conference Resolution/Letter, Richard J. Peterson, President, Tlingit & Haida Central Council Letter, Nels Anderson Jr., veteran, Dillingham Letter, James Strong, veteran, Haines, Alaska Resolution, Alaska State Legislature, 2006 Letter, Homer Tobuk, veteran, Allakaket Letter, Marlys A. Powers, relative of a veteran, Fairbanks Letter, Patrick Huff, veteran, Fairbanks Letter, Nick Monroe, veteran, Nenana Letter, Theodore D. Suckling, veteran, Tanana Letter, Harold J. Semaken, veteran, Anchorage Letter, Michael Littlefield, veteran, Southeast Alaska Letter, Percy Hunter Jr., no town given Letter, Robert D. Mills, Kake Letter, David A. Bran, former Juneau resident, now of West Jordan, UT Letter, James Gray, veteran, Kenai Letter, John Phillips, veteran, Perryville Letter, Nick Neketa, veteran, Pilot Point Letter, Albert Frank, veteran, Venetie Letter, Roger M. Jones, Native veteran, Oakridge, OR Letter, John B. Andrews Jr., for Benny Andrews, Anchorage Letter, Wayne Huntington, veteran, no home town given Letter, Norma J. Williams, sister of veteran Andrew Williams, no home town given Letter, Franklin R. Silas, veteran, no home town given Letter, George H. Koonaloak, veteran, Point Hope Letter, Valerie J. Dewey, veteran, Fairbanks Letter, Sherman A. Thomas, veteran, no home town given Letter, Jake E. Morris, veteran, Juneau Letter, Alfred McKinley Sr., veteran, Juneau Letter, Frank C. White Sr., veteran, Juneau Letter, Anthony Gilbert Mills, veteran, Hoonah Letter, George N. Mills, veteran, Hoonah Letter, Willis P. Prett, veteran, Hoonah Letter, Ronald L. Paul Sr., veteran, Hoonah Letter, Everett J. Glover, veteran, Hoonah Letter, Ray Henry, veteran, Hoonah Letter, Frank Parnell, veteran, Hoonah Letter, John W. Graves, veteran, Juneau Letter, David White Sr., veteran, Juneau Letter, James M. Lindoff Jr., veteran, Juneau Letter, Darrell T. Brown, veteran, Juneau Letter, Lawrence D. Sifsof, veteran, Dillingham Letter, Mrs. Jake A. Aloysius Jr., heir of a veteran, Holy Cross S. 884: Small Miners Waiver Act: Statement and backup from John J. Trautner, Girdwood, Alaska Email, statement by Michael Kukowski, miner near Chicken, Alaska Email, statement by David Kukowski, miner near Chicken, dated 7-31-17 Email from Vernon Thurneau, miner, The Fortymile District Statement from David Guthert, miner, Juneau, (once translated by Dominic) S. 1149: Kake Tribal Council Timber Export Ban Repeal: Letter, testimony, Kake Tribal Corporation, Robert Mills, CEO, President Letter, Clarence Maxey, Frontier Inc., Sandpoint, Idaho [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Lee. Senator Tester, go ahead and tell us what you have to say about this and include with that any pictures of Senator Daines' prom that you might have included with your presentation. STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA Senator Tester. I am afraid they have all been expunged, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for having this hearing and I want to thank Senator Murkowski, the Chairman, and when Wyden gets here thank him too and distinguished members of the Committee, thank you. I want to give thanks for the comments that Senator Daines said. I think he laid out this bill very accurately, and I appreciate his comments. It is an honor and a privilege to come before you today. This is an important bill for Montana's local businesses, especially those involved in the recreation industry, which is significant. As you can tell by this picture, it is fair to say that these kinds of places do not exist just anywhere on Earth. It is a pretty special place. It is at the doorstep of Yellowstone National Park and at the headwaters of the Yellowstone River. A while ago, probably a year ago, the local residents got wind of two mining companies that were planning to expand operations a short distance away from the doorstep of Yellowstone National Park. In fact, you can see where it says Emigrant Mining District, that is where it is. This is home, as Senator Daines said, to world-class fishing, rafting, hiking and hunting, just about anything you want to do. It is an amazing, amazing area. And it is an ecosystem like none other in the world. And so, what does this bill do? And I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman, about importation of minerals but I will tell you there are some places on Earth we simply should not mine. This is one of them. There are other places where it is entirely appropriate. This legislation will help guarantee that large-scale mining will never threaten the headwaters of the Yellowstone or our premier national park in this country, Yellowstone National Park. This legislation has broad support from Republicans, Independents, Democrats, Libertarians, you name it. Why? Because this is the gateway to the park and it is the headwaters of the Yellowstone. It creates millions of dollars in our economy, if not billions of dollars, and helps create a ton of jobs in the region over the long haul. There are over four million people who visit Yellowstone National Park every year. Every one of them spend their hard- earned money in and around the communities of Yellowstone National Park, and if we screw up that park with a large-scale mine, we are not doing justice to the Earth or the people that live on it. A picture is worth a thousand words and I just want to point out to you what we have here. I mean, this is amazing. [The picture referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Tester. Senator Daines is correct. There is another mine that does palladium and platinum. It is a zero-discharge mine, and it is a very good mine. There is no, absolutely no assurance that that is where we will end up here. We could very well end up in a situation like we have in Butte, where it is one of the largest superfund sites. Well, that is arguably one of the largest superfund sites in the world where it pollutes the waters downstream for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of miles. And I would tell you, we do not want that because the impact it will have on Montana is--about $6.4 billion that goes into our economy every year due to recreation. A good portion of that comes right out of this region. This is where the mine would be. This is the Yellowstone River, the headwaters to it. That said, this is what you do when you are having a bad day in Montana. The good day is when you pull a fish out of the water. No, the truth is anytime you can spend time on a river with these kinds of waters and this kind of fishing, it's a pretty special time. And I will tell you--where is the Crevice Mine, right in here--impact of this is the biggest just outside of Yellowstone National Park near Gardiner. [The picture referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Tester. And finally, just the back view of it. This is a different picture of the first one I showed you, but this is the view back in where these mines are going to be. And this is Yellowstone Park over here. [The picture referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Tester. It is just a magnificent country, I mean, it is a place you dream about when you are sitting in an office with no windows, to get out and be able to utilize this area. And it is why people come to places like Montana, why they covet places like Montana. If you put a mine here, I guarantee you it changes this landscape forever whether it is under the best intentions or not, it changes it. So the bottom line is this. We have business people, we have local government-elected officials that say, ``We don't want this.'' And I would just say to this Committee, as you move forward, this is not about a mining ban. This is about making sure that we mine in appropriate places. This is not an appropriate place for a mine, not at the headwaters of the Yellowstone River, nor at the doorstep of Yellowstone National Park. Thank you very much. Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. Senator Heinrich. Senator Lee? Senator Lee. Yes, Senator Heinrich? Senator Heinrich. I just want to thank Senator Tester for his advocacy on this. I had actually hoped to be visiting that region next week. We are going to be a little busy here on other business. But it is a place that draws Americans from every corner because it is so, so darn special and I appreciate you standing up for it. Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator. If the Senate does their job, you will be able to visit there in four or five years and it will be the same. Senator Heinrich. Let's hope it does not take that long. Senator Tester. Thank you. Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Tester and Senator Heinrich. Okay. I am not seeing Senator Wyden yet and I am not seeing Senator Hatch, so we will turn to our witnesses now. Mr. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, and Mr. John Ruhs, Acting Deputy Director of Operations of the Bureau of Land Management. At the end of their testimonies, we will begin questions. Your full written testimony will, of course, be made part of the official hearing record. Please keep your statements, gentlemen, to five minutes so that we can have time for questions. We look forward to hearing from each of you and we will begin with Mr. Casamassa. STATEMENT OF GLENN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. Casamassa. Thank you, Chairman Lee and recognizing Chairman, Senator Murkowski, as it relates to the full Committee, as well as Senator Wyden, when and if he arrives. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agiculture (USDA) and the Forest Service today on a number of bills. My written testimony has been provided for the record. To begin with Senate bill 941, the Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act, I want to emphasize our support for domestic energy and mineral production as an important use of National Forest System lands. Mining and energy development is an important source of jobs and can be a driver of local economies, especially in rural America. Deploying modern technology, mineral and energy resources can be developed in many locations in ways that safeguard environmental protections. USDA seeks to manage these resources and activities in balance with other natural resources and economic drivers found on and around the national forests and grasslands. The balance is what we sought with the Administration withdrawal which is currently in process. S. 32, the California Desert Recreation and Protection Act, and S. 1548, the Oregon Wildland Act, primarily affect the Bureau of Land Management and we defer to their views on the bills as they affect lands under their jurisdiction. For those wilderness and wild and scenic river designations in each bill affecting the National Forest, we'd like to work with the sponsors and the Subcommittee on a few specifics to ensure implementation would occur successfully and in balance with our overall, multiple-use mission. S. 1149 would repeal the provisions in the Kake Tribal Corporation and Land Transfer Act which prohibit Kake Tribal Corporation from exporting timber from their lands. The Forest Service considers our role in this Act to be fully implemented. The Forest Service does not have a role in Kake Tribal Corporation's timber sale activities; therefore, we have no position on the bill. We are providing a statement for this on the record. We recognize the significant role played by Charlie Fowler and Christine Boskoff in American and International Mountaineering and appreciate the desire to designate two unnamed mountain peaks in Colorado in their memory. While as a matter of policy USDA follows the direction of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, it does not provide for naming an unnamed peak within Congressional designated wilderness. USDA does not oppose S. 1271 based on the contribution of Mr. Fowler and Ms. Boskoff in this field and the community support for these designations. The Historic Routes Protection Act, S. 468, provides for Administrative resolution for claims of historic rights-of-way made under a provision from the 1866 Statute. The Forest Service understands the concerns this legislation is designed to address and appreciates the work of the bill's sponsors to craft a method to resolve these claims which, given the historic nature, can be extremely complicated to verify and establish. The Forest Service respects legitimate access rights held by public road agencies and is working to make strides to improve our service and partnership with state and local governments in meeting shared public transportation goals using the many existing authorities we already possess. We look forward to working with the sponsors and Subcommittee to address specific items in the bill that could pose implementation challenges if passed in its current version. S. 1230, the Water Rights Protection Act, seems to ensure the Forest Service does not compel holders of state-granted water rights to convey these rights to the United States or acquire rights in the name of the United States in order to secure or maintain land use authorization. The Forest Service respects the primacy of the states in regulating water allocations consistent with both federal and state lands and seeks to be good neighbors and good partners with states, tribes, communities, water rights holders and the general public we serve, in helping to sustain water resources on National Forest lands. That said, we understand the concerns driving the legislation and believe the primary goal of the bill is met by prohibiting these two specific actions. Beyond that, the Forest Service recommends only very specific amendments to the bill to ensure the land use authorizations continue to be issued in balance with other resource and social considerations to provide for responsible multiple-use management now and into the future. Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. And I look forward to any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Lee. Thank you, sir. Before we hear from Mr. Ruhs, we see we have Senator Hatch here now and Senator Hatch is going to now present to us regarding S. 837. Senator Hatch. STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lee, today I would like to speak in support of the Southern Utah Open OHV Areas Act which would establish much- needed guaranteed protections for recreational access on roughly 20,000 acres of land in Washington County, Utah. Down in Washington County, riding off-highway vehicles, or OHVs, is an integral part of the local culture. It is a way for the folks to get out and enjoy Utah, enjoy the land, enjoy the beautiful area, and experience the region's unique geography. It is a beloved pastime for families in southern Utah, and it is essential to the region's tourism industry. Just last summer I had the wonderful opportunity to see firsthand the region's trails, red rocks, and dunes. In fact, I rode in a dune buggy all across the famous Hurricane Sand Dunes with Washington County Sheriff Cory Pulsipher. Unfortunately, for too long members of the OHV community in Washington County have had to deal with increased uncertainty about long-term OHV access. Over time, long-revered paths and trails have become more restricted, or sometimes even closed, and locals are left to bear the burden. That is why I introduced legislation that would give certainty to the OHV community by ensuring that the most treasured area for OHV access on the only remaining open OHV area in the entire county is preserved for future generations. Most importantly, Chairman Lee, I am proud to say that this legislation reflects a truly collaborative effort. I am grateful to you and for the leadership that you provide in Utah, very much. My proposal is the combination of extensive discussions between diverse stakeholders in Washington County that collectively wish to preserve recreational access in the Hurricane Sand Dunes by designating it as an open OHV recreation area. This type of common ground exists because OHV access is more than just a priority for the county's recreational community. According to the County, events and riding in the Hurricane Sand Dunes also brings in at least $3 million to the local economy each year and it constitutes a significant tourist attraction for the region that draws outdoor enthusiasts from across the country. I believe the open OHV access is one of the reasons that Washington County is one of the fastest growing areas of the United States. But as I mentioned, even as the County grows at one of the highest rates in the country, access to open OHV areas is becoming increasingly limited. To protect recreational access in the Hurricane Sand Dunes now and in the future, I have worked hard to establish a solution that enjoys the support of the County, OHV groups, the regional water conservancy district, and others. I appreciate the Committee giving fair consideration to this legislation and providing me the opportunity to speak with you here today. It is very meaningful to me and, of course, I hope that we can move this along so that the folks in Washington County are treated fairly and in accordance with what their reasonable desires are. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The written statement of Senator Hatch follows:] [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch, and thanks for telling us about the dune buggy. There is nothing more fun than exploring Utah's lands through a vehicle like that. Thanks for sharing that with us. Senator Hatch. If you will excuse me, I am going to head back to Judiciary. Senator Lee. Certainly, sir. Mr. Ruhs. STATEMENT OF JOHN RUHS, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Mr. Ruhs. Good morning, Chairman Lee and Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Wyden, and other members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I will briefly summarize the written statements concerning the 12 bills on today's agenda related to the Department of the Interior. In general, we support many of the goals of these bills and stand ready to work cooperatively with the Congress as they move forward. S. 785 would provide to Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans an opportunity to apply for an individual federal land allotment in Alaska. The Department supports the goals of the bill and looks forward to working with the sponsor on resolving technical issues. S. 616 establishes a commercial concessions pilot program for lands covered by the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The Department supports the bill's goals and would like to work with the sponsor on a few modifications, including language providing the BLM with broad recreation concessions authority. S. 837 directs a land exchange between the BLM and the State of Utah and conveys certain BLM-managed lands to Washington County, Utah. The Department supports the bill's goals of enhancing outdoor recreation and consolidating land ownership. Our written testimony outlines the extensive process by which the agency would conduct an exchange were it not directed by Congress. Congress can determine alternative procedures that offer expediency and encompass the needs for local communities. The Department supports these efforts. S. 357 would authorize a land exchange between the BLM and San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. The Department supports the bill and would like to work with the sponsor on a few modifications. S. 436 allows for the exchange of certain federal coal leases, authorizes the substitution of Navajo Nation land selections and designates two wilderness areas in Northern New Mexico. The Department supports the bill's provisions that resolve coal leasing and tribal issues. S. 32 establishes numerous conservation, recreation, and special management designations, among other provisions. The Department does not support the bill as currently written because many of the proposed designations and administrative provisions could ultimately decrease public access, limit outdoor recreation, and impede energy development. S. 1548 establishes two national recreation areas, adds over 280 miles of Oregon rivers to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and establishes new conservation designations on federal lands in Oregon. The Department does not support the bill as currently written because the proposed designations could decrease public access and impede timber management and harvest. S. 90 requires the Secretary to commission a gradient boundary survey along the Red River, directed by the States of Texas and Oklahoma and in consultation with the tribes. The Department supports the goal of obtaining certainty about the location of federal land in relation to adjacent private land. We would like to work with the sponsor on modifications. S. 467 directs the sale of BLM-managed lands in Mohave County, Arizona, that have been identified as potentially suitable for disposal. The Department supports the bill's goals and looks forward to working with the sponsor on a few modifications. S. 468 aims to establish a procedure for resolving claims to rights-of-way under R.S. 2477. The Department supports the sponsor's goal of resolving this issue. We would like to work with the sponsors on modifications that we believe will streamline the proposed process. S. 884 would allow mining claimants a chance to cure their failure to meet certain required filing deadlines and would give private relief to a small number of mining claimants. The Department supports the bill's goal of providing flexibility to small miners who have missed their filing deadlines and would welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor on modifications. Finally, the Department has submitted a statement for the record on S. 1230 which reinforces the state's primary authority over water allocation. The Department supports the goals of this bill and looks forward to working with the sponsor to ensure that both private property rights and public resources are protected. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ruhs follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Thanks to both of you for your testimony. We will now start with five-minute rounds of questioning, alternating between Republicans and Democrats, and I will be going first. Mr. Casamassa, I will start with you. I continue to be concerned about some of the mixed messages from the Forest Service when it comes to deference to state water authority. At a budget hearing last month, we heard Chief Tidwell say that the agency defers to state water law. And yet, in the same discussion he indicated that it was appropriate for the Forest Service to restrict certain water uses in order to align water management with federal land management plans. Can you clarify what the Forest Service's position is on where the agency's jurisdiction ends and where the state's jurisdiction begins? Mr. Casamassa. Thank you, Senator, good question. We recognize that the states have primacy over water rights associated with the specific states and relative to the law that's passed and implemented in each specific state. There is, in order for the Forest Service to ensure that we can maintain our multiple-use mandate, it is in our interest to ensure that the water that is used on National Forest System land could be maintained and stay on National Forest System land, as part of the overall multiple-use mandate. Senator Lee. Thank you. Now I want to ask a follow-up question that I will open up to both of you. In addition to the conflict that sometimes arises between federal and state water jurisdiction, there is a long history of conflicts between federal land managers and private water users in the West. So I would ask each of you, in your view, what are some specific institutional changes or regulatory adjustments that could be made within your respective agencies to restore trust with western water users? We will start with you, Mr. Ruhs. Mr. Ruhs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, in response to that, I have had a lot of opportunities to work in the field throughout my career at the Bureau of Land Management and I have found that over time most of the problems that we have had with conflicts over water or other issues can easily be resolved, not easily, excuse me, but when you sit down with people and you collaborate and you work together, you can normally find resolution. And I think from the federal standpoint, we continually have to make sure that we understand the state water laws and we have to understand that we're following those laws correctly and that they apply to the Federal Government as well. Also, at that same time we have to ensure that we are protecting the federal resources, that we are protecting those federal assets that we need to ensure include water rights and water for wildlife, et cetera. But together, I think we can easily resolve any conflicts that come before us. And, I guess, we look forward to continuing to do that. Senator Lee. Mr. Casamassa? Mr. Casamassa. I certainly would agree with where John is coming from with respect to working out some issues associated with water disputes at the local level, collaborating with the various water users on their collection and conveyance system and where their rights are and where the points of diversion are with respect to how they want to manage their water, in conjunction with the state. I do think that in some respects, perhaps, there are things that the Forest Service can do. I know that there are some issues associated with some of our policy that may need to be clarified in order to, again, as you have alluded to, Senator, that could build some additional trust to clarify points within our policies. Senator Lee. Yes, I appreciate the sentiments that both of you have expressed. We are talking here about fairly broad generalizations. Are there any specific policy changes or specific procedures you think could be adopted? Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator. I think that there is reference to potentially some direction that was provided in letter form in the State of Utah and Southern Idaho and the State of Nevada that continues to, perhaps, erode the trust, or not build trust, associated with National Forest System lands. And I think that if we would take and rescind that letter while we have--it is just something that maybe we have to have an overaction to take care of that letter in order to build trust. Senator Lee. Okay. Mr. Casamassa. That would be one example. Senator Lee. If that letter were to be formally rescinded-- and is that going to happen? Mr. Casamassa. That is something that if you have asked for an example of what we could do to establish or continually build trust, that certainly could be one of the things that we could do. Senator Lee. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Thank you. Mr. Ruhs, as you know, the issues that would be resolved by the San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act have been pending for some time. The mineral issues in this bill actually date back to 1964. I think that puts them at 53 years and still unresolved. The Navajo Nation is still waiting for land that they were promised in 1974 as part of the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act. That makes them a little more young and spry, only 43 issues, or 43 years unresolved. The WSA issue has been unresolved now for 26 years. This is a bill that is supported by the company that owns the coal rights. It is supported by the Navajo Nation. It is supported by the County Commission. In my view, these issues have been dragged out for a very long time and we have an opportunity to resolve them once and for all. Would the BLM prefer litigation to legislation as the pathway to resolving all of these issues? Mr. Ruhs. Senator, the BLM would not prefer litigation. We would certainly like to work together to resolve any concerns we have with the legislation. Senator Heinrich. Go ahead, sir. Mr. Ruhs. I was just going to follow up, sir, with the fact that we are in strong support of resolving the mineral claim issues as well as the native land selections. And we would like to work together to review and continue to look at the wilderness and WSA issues. Senator Heinrich. The challenge, Mr. Ruhs, is that all of these issues exist on the exact same land. That is why we have a challenge today. We have a preference right lease application on Ah-Shi-Sle- Pah. We have a WSA on those same lands in Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah. And we have a Navajo selection. So saying we are going to take these things apart and not solve them all at once is, I think, a recipe for another few decades of not resolving these issues. I think if we do not resolve these issues legislatively, the likely outcome of that is that we will see litigation. And they will be resolved with litigation, which would be unfortunate. I think we have a situation here where we can keep the Navajo Nation whole, we can keep the coal company whole, and we can keep the wilderness whole. But if we do not do those three things together, I think the deal falls apart and that is why this legislation is so important. Senator Lee. Thank you. Senator Daines. Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Casamassa, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the views of the local community are very important in any land use decision. Regarding the Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act, in your view, did this administrative withdrawal process begin with local support? And would you agree that the local community stands squarely behind a withdrawal? Mr. Casamassa. Thank you, Senator. I think that, yes, the local community indicated to a large degree that they were very much supportive of the mineral withdrawal. And in addition to that it was--I think that has been confirmed through the comments that we have received since it has been noticed in the Federal Register, and the scoping has continued to come in from the withdrawal proposal. Yes. Senator Daines. What is the status of the environmental review on the administrative withdrawal? Mr. Casamassa. That, at this time, Senator, we have worked through, again, the noticing of the withdrawal. We have solicited public comment. In the comment period, we have had one public meeting. And right now, we are distilling down all of the comments that we have received and shaping to the degree the environmental effects analysis associated with the withdrawal proposal, as well as, potentially, looking at some alternatives that could be derived from the public comment that we have received. Senator Daines. So, you have not yet completed your analysis? Mr. Casamassa. No, no, not at this time. We have a two-year period that we are estimating that we would complete the analysis in. Senator Daines. Two years. So when do you expect a final decision? Mr. Casamassa. Fall of 2018. Senator Daines. Okay. What will the environmental assessment cover? Mr. Casamassa. Good question. It is going to cover the mineral, the extent of the mineral body itself, the economics associated with the mining of that, the implications associated with that being withdrawn and what would be forgone in the event of the withdrawal, as well as all the resource facets associated with air, water, soil, wildlife, the vegetation, and the recreational opportunities associated with that particular area. Senator Daines. So the impact on the outdoor economy would also be factored into your calculus? Mr. Casamassa. That is part of what we would look at with respect to the, I would say, the beneficial impacts to withdrawing that area from mineral entry. Senator Daines. Will it be based on sound science? Mr. Casamassa. Absolutely. And I would add to that both, not only the resource science but the science associated with mineral development. Senator Daines. And when you say that it would analyze the economics of the mineral ore and physical anomalies of the ore body and other factors, hypothetically, could the analysis recommend that the Administration not move forward with the withdrawal? Mr. Casamassa. That is always a potential that, you know, based on the compilation of impacts associated with this particular proposal that could inform the decision to not advance the withdrawal. Senator Daines. How about a partial withdrawal? Mr. Casamassa. That is potentially part of what could be uncovered as part of the overall analysis. Senator Daines. As well as a complete withdrawal of all 30,000 acres? Mr. Casamassa. That is correct. Senator Daines. Do you believe that fact and science-based environmental analysis should drive this process? Mr. Casamassa. I think, certainly, fact and science-based analysis, data analysis and information should significantly inform the decision-making process. Senator Daines. This legislation withdraws mineral rights, subject to valid existing rights. If a claimant has valid rights within a withdrawal area, can a mine be developed? Mr. Casamassa. Yes. Senator Daines. What challenges does a withdrawal create to developing those valid rights, if any? Mr. Casamassa. In the event that the lands that are part of the withdrawal are actually withdrawn and they are adjacent to valid and existing rights, it limits the potential for the expansion of the development of a mine that goes beyond what is valid and existing as of this present time. Senator Daines. So if there is a private inholding where one is pursuing mineral development, surrounded by withdrawn federal minerals, how will the development of the mine on private land be impacted? Mr. Casamassa. Well certainly it would limit the scope and scale of the ore body that could be mined. Senator Daines. Okay. Thank you. Senator Lee. Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Welcome, welcome, gentlemen. It is good to see both of you. Mr. Ruhs, welcome to Washington, DC. I look forward to working with you. Let me follow up with my colleague, Senator Lee's, conversation on water rights. I really appreciate the questions and the conversation. And let me ask, Mr.--is it Casamassa? Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator. Senator Cortez Masto. My new favorite name, Casamassa. Mr. Casamassa. Mine too. [Laughter.] Senator Cortez Masto. Senate bill 1230, which is the Water Rights Protection Act--I did not hear, is this a bill that you support and if not, why? Mr. Casamassa. Well certainly we recognize that the provisions associated with prohibiting the transfer or acquiring water rights in the name of the Federal Government or the Forest Service is something that this bill does and you know, we recognize that. Senator Cortez Masto. Is that a yes or a no? So, you do support it or you do not support it or you support it with changes or---- Mr. Casamassa. Well, we recognize that that's part of the bill. There are some changes associated with other language in the bill that we'd like to work with the bill sponsor and the Committee on. Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. Because I saw in your written testimony that one of the things that you mentioned, specifically, are sections that impair the Forest Service's ability to balance the many multiple uses of Forest Service land. Is that what you are talking about? Mr. Casamassa. Yes, that's correct. Senator Cortez Masto. Can you be specific? Mr. Casamassa. Well, you know, specifically the bill refers to title, if you will, of water rights as it relates to potential valid rights which are not perfected at this time that provides a water rights filer with the ability to be, to a degree, unencumbered by any kind of authorization when and if they would be on National Forest System lands. Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. So you are willing to work with everyone to try to address that issue? Mr. Casamassa. Yes. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Let me jump real quick then to Senate bill 884 and let me ask this. This is the Small Miners Waiver Act. And just to verify, Mr. Ruhs, is this a bill that is supported by the BLM? Mr. Ruhs. Senator, the bill as written, excuse me. The Department supports the bill, although we would like to work with the sponsor to make some modifications in it and just ensure the language meets the intent or the need that we have. But we do support the bill in general. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you because obviously, as you well know, Nevada is a mining state. And I do believe that miners should receive notice and an opportunity to cure defective claims. So we look forward to working with you as well. And then finally, on Senate bill 468, which is the Historic Routes Preservation Act, and I am going to open this question up to both of you but let me start with Mr. Ruhs. You may or may not know this, but NACo, our National Association of Counties, supports this bill and I believe Nye County and Lincoln County in Nevada also have an interest in this bill. Could this bill help the counties of Nevada meet their transportation needs? Do you have an opinion on that? Mr. Ruhs. Senator, I believe that this bill, if we were able to work with the sponsors and to modify a few parts of it, would definitely help us resolve some of the issues that we have. I think it takes a good first step to getting us where we need to be, and I think that's probably the important thing. Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. And could this legislation potentially result in the privatization of rights-of-way to the detriment of public lands? Mr. Ruhs. We believe that's why having that time working together with the Committee and with the sponsors to make sure we address some of those concerns, we could avoid having that happen. Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, I appreciate that. And then finally, Mr. Casamassa, I believe in your written testimony you mentioned that there is a lack of staff with expertise in complex historical and legal reviews needed to evaluate these claims. Can you just elaborate a little bit more? This is with reference to Senate bill 468. Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator. You know, the claims that are made under R.S. 2477 are related to the lands that were not reserved prior to the reservation. And on the National Forest System lands, most of those lands were reserved in 1905. Records associated with the, with, say a claim, have to be prior to 1905. There is no real repository of records. They need to be gathered up from various sources. Some even have to be authenticated by historians in order to ensure that there is a claim that could be valid prior to 1905. So that's an example of the largest of the tasks associated with making those claims prior to the reservation. Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you for your comments today. I look forward to working with both of you. Senator Lee. Senator Gardner. Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to both of you for your service and testimony today. Mr. Ruhs, I will start with you and a question about one of the bills before us, Senate bill 1230, broadly speaking. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the legislation, the Water Rights Protection Act, and I thank the Chairman for bringing this piece of legislation up for consideration today. It is a very important bill for Colorado and I commend the leadership of my Colorado colleague, Scott Tipton, for leading this effort in the House of Representatives. The House version of the bill has now passed the House of Representatives, and so I want to commend Scott Tipton for the great work that he has done on this to protect Colorado and state water rights. With Colorado being a headwater state for major river basins including the Platte, the Rio Grande, the South Platte, and the Colorado, it is essential that the water rights from each of these rivers not be put in question by federal regulatory overreach. So in the concluding paragraph of your testimony today you state that you, Mr. Ruhs, recognize Congress' desire to reinforce state water rights in light of potential federal overreach. While I recognize that you brought up some technical points and concerns about the legislation during your testimony, broadly speaking though, do you believe that the Water Rights Protection Act would further clarify and reinforce the principle that water rights should be decided at the state and local government level, if the bill were to be enacted? Mr. Ruhs. Senator, we support the goals of the bill, and we would like to work with the sponsors and the Committee on the language that is in it. We feel real comfortable with the House bill and the way it is worded and the way it presents itself. And so, we would like to work together to get to that point. Senator Gardner. Yes, sure. But do you believe that it would reinforce the principle of the water rights, which would be decided at the state and local government level? Mr. Ruhs. Could you repeat that, sir? Senator Gardner. Do you think that the bill, broadly speaking, reinforces the principle that water rights should be decided at the state and local government levels? Mr. Ruhs. Yes, sir, and we support that. Senator Gardner. Thank you. Mr. Casamassa, a question for you. In my time across Colorado forests one concern I hear from sheriffs and county commissioners continues to be the issue of law enforcement in our national forests. There have been some concerns about illegal operations in various parts of Colorado's forests and we have seen an uptake in some vandalism, unfortunately, of both National Parks in Colorado and within the Forest Service. And so, what can we do to help either give more tools to local management, local decision-makers, when it comes to law enforcement or is there something that we need to do from a resource or personnel perspective to focus more on law enforcement with the National Forest? Mr. Casamassa. Yeah, thank you, Senator. And the idea of the increased use or the--there are increased uses that are occurring on all of the public lands, primarily in states with large-scale growth, like Colorado, particularly along the front range. There are concerns associated with illegal grows on the Pike and San Isabel National Forests where we find the most illegal grows in the state. That said, you know, we are working in cooperation with local county sheriffs and the states to ensure that we can provide the appropriate resources across this large, vast landscape. I know one of the things that we seem to be effective on is when we do work together and be able to target specific kinds of uses or abuses and then work in specific locations on those. So, you know, right now based on the research that we have available, we are working, I think, in a somewhat efficient manner. Certainly there is always room for improvement but given the resources that are available, the resource demands that are being placed on the National Forests and the BLM lands and the national parks, there is just increased concerns associated with improper use. Senator Gardner. Let me ask you this, because when I hear these conversations about illegal grow operations and some of these activities that are taking place, I hear it from the sheriff's perspective and I hear it from the county commissioner's perspective. When you hear it from personnel within the Forest Service, where does it rank amidst their concerns? I mean, is this a--is it being blown out of proportion? Is it a legitimate problem? Is it something that we are not focusing enough on? How does it--are we getting the real story? Mr. Casamassa. Well, and I think it is, certainly, a problem, not only from the standpoint of an illegal activity occurring on National Forests, but in the way that that illegal activity is happening. There is clearly a number of illegal chemicals that are found in the grows. There is water being syphoned off of areas that should not have that water being syphoned off to actually enhance the grows. There are booby traps. There are all sorts of illegal activities associated with grows that not only are illegal, but they do have a, there is a concern over people stumbling across the grows while people, while the illegal use is occurring that there is a real concern there, not only from the standpoint of public health and safety, but the long-term impacts of all of the materials that are left at these sites. Senator Gardner. And if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one follow-up? Are these primarily, you know, Ma and Pa criminal type of activities or are they more cartel-driven or organized-crime- type-driven activities? Mr. Casamassa. It is my understanding that, you know, it runs, there is a full range of, you know, the complexity and the sophistication of the grows that are on all the public lands. Senator Gardner. Thank you. Mr. Casamassa. Sure. Senator Lee. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. I want to apologize to all our guests because I am involved in managing the health care bill on the Floor. I would also like to note that, having served on this Committee for around 20 years now, this is the hottest it has ever been in this Committee room. So I am not going to ask colleagues to engage in debate about climate change, but as far as this Committee room is concerned, certainly that ought to be noted. The Oregon Wildlands Act is a piece of legislation that I care particularly about because it takes several wilderness and wild and scenic provisions from a separate bill that I have authored, and we have appreciated the Forest Service's interest in this. The Committee passed the lands designation out of Committee as part of my Oregon-California bill in 2014. They did not become law. My view is, it is far past time to actually turn them into law and I am going to pull out all the stops until these fragile landscapes get the protection that they deserve. And it is an especially important time to move ahead with these types of protections. The present Interior Department is reviewing public lands designations in my state now, and Oregonians want to make sure that there is a bright future for their treasured public lands. Maintaining and improving access to public lands is not just for this generation, but for the generations to come. And this legislation builds on the success that we have seen in protecting public lands. It is going to protect the Devil's Staircase on the Oregon Coast. This is home to one of the last old growth forests on the Oregon Coast mountain range. It protects more than 100,000 acres as national recreation areas. It designates hundreds of miles of best-known fishing streams as wild and scenic. We have a remarkable range of landscapes and the reality is that recreation is an engine, an economic engine now, for our country, for hikers, climbers, hunters, anglers, and everyone in between. And I think my colleague from Utah knows this just like we know it in Oregon. We have been working on an important piece of legislation. We will have some more to say about it here fairly shortly, called the RNR bill, the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act, and this Oregon Wildlands package is going to help advance this objective. Last Congress, the Committee received more than 20 letters supporting the bill from every corner of Oregon, and we have built the coalition involving conservation, fish and wildlife experts, and constituents who particularly want to be outdoors. They are the men and women who care about outdoor sports. This legislation responds to them. One last point, Mr. Chairman, if I might. There is another bill on the agenda, S. 468, which establishes a new process for creating rights-of-way across federal lands. This bill has enormous implications throughout the West and, I think it would be fair to say, is a change in decades of legal precedent. I have heard from folks at home who are concerned about the effect this would have on bedrock land protections and that it could also, depending on how it's interpreted and the exact words, threaten the protection of national monuments, National Forest lands and much of the National Park System and public lands run by the Bureau of Land Management. I want to be clear to my colleagues that I am interested in working on all legitimate issues relating to rights-of-way claims across federal lands. We ought to identify them. We ought to resolve them, but I continue to be concerned about establishing a sweeping new policy that could raise serious questions about the protection for special places. Mr. Chairman, again, my thanks for your help on including the Oregon Wildlands Act on the hearing agenda. I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, on the whole package of bills. And it will be interesting to see whether the temperature in this room reverts to this big historic tradition of being just about colder than most days in Lisa Murkowski's home state. So I thank you and look forward to working with you. Senator Lee. We will try to bring a little bit more of Alaska into this room to make sure that it is a little bit less tropical. Thank you, Senator Wyden, for your comments on that. I do want to point out, with respect to R.S. 2477 roads, the question here is about ownership. This is not a proposal. The legislation that you referenced is not something that would change federal policy in the sense that the federal policy at issue was adopted in a statute, Revised Statute 2477, or R.S. 2477, back in 1866. It created ownership rights. This legislation to which you are referring is one that would create a process whereby ownership claims could be facilitated because they have been dragged forward and almost by inaction by the Federal Government. Often valid ownership claims have been dismissed or have been neglected resulting in a cloud of title and resulting, in many instances, in access that is needed by the residents of, or visitors to, many states throughout the country, especially in the western United States, in states like the State of Utah where I live. This is their land. I mean, an R.S. 2477 right-of-way is an ownership interest. It is one that is held by the state. In my state it is jointly held by the state and the county, but to say that you are creating a sweeping change in federal policy simply by establishing a procedure whereby those claims can be established, facilitated, and discussed with the Federal Government, that is not accurate to describe that as a sweeping change to federal policy. That policy was established in 1866 with the passage of R.S. 2477. Now 110 years later in 1976, with the passage of FLPMA, that policy changed but that policy change was made non-retroactively such that legitimate land claims established pursuant to R.S. 2477 between 1866 and 1976 are, in fact, valid claims. So I just wanted to set the record clear on that. These are, moreover, not merely hypothetical interests that are at stake. For many residents of the State of Utah, their ability to recreate, their ability to access their own land, their ability to get from one part of the state to another part of the state, to get to where their cattle graze, to get to where their farms are, where their businesses happen to be located, it may, in many instances, depend on a R.S. 2477 right-of-way. In many instances, a significant part of a county's road system, its transportation network, will be built on R.S. 2477 rights-of-way. So these are not merely academic issues. These are things that are part of the way of life of people throughout the western United States, especially in my state. The people who depend on these rights-of-way deserve to have their claims heard. And the American people need to have these things decided, especially given a comment someone made earlier in this hearing, given that the longer we go, given the passage of time that has occurred between the enactment of FLPMA and today, the ability to establish or refute the existence of a R.S. 2477 right-of-way can grow more difficult over time. All the more reason why we ought to establish procedures whereby we can have the government acknowledge valid claims where they exist. Mr. Ruhs, in your written testimony, you noted that there has been a dramatic reduction in land that is accessible to the OHV community in Washington County, Utah, that is in the southwestern corner of the State of Utah, since 1999. The OHV industry is, of course, a key economic driver for local communities in that part of the state. The Sand Mountain Special Recreation Management Area alone generates $3 million in economic activity every year. Not surprisingly, the County is eager to preserve what is left in their open OHV areas which is why the county commission recently passed a resolution supporting S. 837. So can you tell me, sir, what is the BLM doing to preserve OHV and other recreational access areas on public lands in Washington County? Mr. Ruhs. Senator, I do not have the specifics on what BLM is doing in Washington County, but I can tell you on a whole, we are trying to work together with the communities to ensure that we provide recreation access and that we ensure the ability of the OHV community and others to be able to access the public lands and to utilize those resources that are available. I think that is one of the most important things to this department as well as to the BLM is ensuring public access and those recreation opportunities. Senator Lee. So can I get a commitment from you that you will work with local officials to increase access to recreational opportunities in the county? Mr. Ruhs. Certainly, Senator, you have my personal commitment. Senator Lee. Thank you, sir. Okay, I have no additional questions. And in light of that, I want to encourage any members to submit follow-up, written questions for the record. The record for this hearing will remain open for two weeks. I want to thank both of you and the other witnesses who have come today and provided testimony. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED ---------- [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]