    [Senate Hearing 115-502]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 115-502

                              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

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

     S. 414/H.R. 1107                           S. 1219/H.R. 3392                  S. 2206
    S. 441                                      S. 1222                            S. 2218
    S. 507                                      S. 1481                            S. 2249
    S. 612/H.R. 1547                            S. 1665/H.R. 2582                  H.R. 995
    S. 1046                                     S. 2062                            H.R. 1404

                                   ----------

                                FEBRUARY 7, 2018

                                   ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-502

                              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

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

    S. 414/H.R. 1107                    S. 1219/H.R. 3392          S. 2206
    S. 441                              S. 1222                    S. 2218
    S. 507                              S. 1481                    S. 2249
    S. 612/H.R. 1547                    S. 1665/H.R. 2582          H.R. 995
    S. 1046                             S. 2062                    H.R. 1404

                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 7, 2018

                                   __________

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           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
    28-699               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                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TINA SMITH, Minnesota
                                     ------

               Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                               MIKE LEE, Chairman

    JOHN BARRASSO                        RON WYDEN
    JAMES E. RISCH                       DEBBIE STABENOW
    JEFF FLAKE                           JOE MANCHIN III
    STEVE DAINES                         MARTIN HEINRICH
    CORY GARDNER                         MAZIE K. HIRONO
    LAMAR ALEXANDER                      CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
    JOHN HOEVEN                          TINA SMITH
    BILL CASSIDY
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources
                                Policy Director
                 Mary Louise Wagner, 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
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............     3
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from Louisiana................     4
    Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, a U.S. Senator from Nevada.........     5
    Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana..................     6
    Gardner, Hon. Cory, a U.S. Senator from Colorado.................    65

                                   WITNESSES

    Heller, Hon. Dean, a U.S. Senator from Nevada....................    69
    Tester, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from Montana....................    71
    Udall, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico..................    77
    Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
      U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............    90
    Steed, Brian, Deputy Director for Policy and Programs, Bureau of
      Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior...............   103

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Alaska Federation of Natives:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   218
        Resolution 17-19 for the Record..............................   224
    Alaska Native Village Corporation Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   226
    Alaska Wilderness League, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   227
    Allen, Marian:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   230
    American Bird Conservancy, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   233
    Americans for Responsible Recreational Access, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   235
    Announcement and Agenda..........................................     2
    Back Country Horsemen of Montana:
        Letter for the Record........................................   237
    Backcountry Sled Patriots:
        Letter for the Record........................................     9
    Ball, Teri:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   238
    Ballance, Hon. Nancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................    10
    Barb, Lee Ann Hollingsworth:
        Letter for the Record........................................   147
    Barnard, Grant:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   239
    Bartholomew, Patricia:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   240
    Beaverhead County (Montana) Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................    11
    Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists:
        Letter for the Record........................................    15
    Bitterroot Ridgerunners Snowmobile Club:
        Letter for the Record........................................    17
    Bitterrooters for Planning:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   241
    Bossier Parish (Louisiana) Assessor's Office:
        Letter for the Record including Conveyance Records...........   148
    Byerly, Dave:
        Letter for the Record........................................   242
    Campbell, Larry:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   244
        Statement for the Record dated 2/8/18........................   245
        Statement for the Record dated 2/23/18.......................   246
    Campfield, Delia:
        Letter for the Record to Senator Alexander...................   247
        Letter for the Record to Senator Barrasso....................   248
        Letter for the Record to Senator Cassidy.....................   249
        Letter for the Record to Senator Flake.......................   250
        Letter for the Record to Senator Lee.........................   251
    Capital Trail Vehicle Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    19
    Casamassa, Glenn:
        Opening Statement............................................    90
        Written Testimony............................................    92
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Chart titled ``Lands as Delineated by Original Survey
          December 18, 1842''........................................   141
        Chart showing home lots on land conveyed to the Bossier
          Parish Levy Board..........................................   143
        Chart titled ``Lands as Delineated by Survey on September 16,
          1967''.....................................................   145
        Correspondence from BLM Survey Group Number 49, Louisiana....   158
        BLM--Correspondence to Parish and Individuals................   160
    Citizens for Balanced Use:
        Letter for the Record........................................    22
    City of Tenakee Springs (Alaska):
        Letter for the Record........................................   252
    C'MON 4x4 Club:
        Lettet for the Record........................................    23
    Coeur Mining, Inc.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   256
    Colorado River Indian Tribes:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   258
    Connell, Hon. Patrick:
        Letter for the Record........................................    24
    Cooper, Carol L.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   260
    Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
    Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   264
    Council of Border Conservation Districts:
        Letter for the Record........................................   265
    Cunningham, Bill:
        Letter for the Record........................................   266
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        Opening Statement............................................     6
        Chart titled ``Montana Support for S. 2206, the Protect
          Public Use of Public Lands Act''...........................     8
    D'Antuono, John M.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   267
    Dayton, Chandler:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   268
    Delk, Joe N.
        Letter for the Record........................................   269
    Dense, Chas:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   271
    Dieterich, Michele:
        Letter for the Record........................................   272
    Dolores County (Colorado) Board of County Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................    67
    Dona Ana County Farm & Livestock Bureau:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   273
    Donofrio, Mac:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   275
    Doyon, Limited:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   276
    Elison, Glenn W.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   278
    Enk, Michael:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   280
    Fergus County (Montana) Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................    26
    Filson, Dorothy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   281
    Friends of the Bitterroot:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   282
    Friends of Nevada Wilderness:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   284
    Frieze, Mary:
        Letter for the Record........................................   292
    Gardner, Hon. Cory:
        Opening Statement............................................    65
    Gerdes, Stephen:
        Letter for the Record........................................   293
    Granite County (Montana) Board of County Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................    27
    Great Falls Bicycle Club:
        Letter for the Record........................................    28
    Great Falls Trail Bike Riders Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    31
    Guynn, Peter C.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   294
    Gwich'in Steering Committee:
        Letter for the Record........................................   295
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
        Letter to Senator Udall from U.S. Customs and Border
          Protection dated 6/7/16....................................   135
    Heller, Hon. Dean:
        Opening Statement............................................    69
    Hilden, Alan:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   297
    Jackson, Matthew:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   298
    Judith Basin County Commissioners:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    32
    Keele, Van P.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   299
    Keele, Van P. and Karen L. Savory:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   300
    Kemp, Molly:
        Letter for the Record........................................   301
    Knight, Ellen:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   302
    Knight, Phil:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   303
    Koehler, Bart:
        Letter for the Record........................................   305
    Koehler, Juliet:
        Letter for the Record........................................   307
    Krebill, Kerry L.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   308
    LaCroix, William:
        Letter for the Record........................................   309
    Landry, Hon. Jeff:
        Letter for the Record........................................   161
    La Paz County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   208
    Larkin, Brad:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   310
    Lawrence, Russ:
        Letter for the Record........................................   311
    Lee, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Lewis, Thomas E. and Linda Thorn-Lewis:
        Letter for the Record........................................   163
    Lohrer, Laurie:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   312
    Long, Dr. Michelle:
        Letter for the Record........................................   313
    Louisiana Landowners Association, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   164
    Lue, Julie:
        Letter for the Record........................................   314
    Luedke, Bret:
        Letter for the Record........................................   315
    Madison County (Montana) Board of Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................   316
    Mannino, Darius:
        Letter for the Record........................................   317
    Manzella, Hon. Theresa:
        Letter for the Record........................................    33
    Martin, Sr., John G.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   318
        Letter to Kimberly Sager, Alaska Department of Natural
          Resources, dated 12/11/17..................................   321
    McBeen, Samuel E. and Molly Kemp:
        Letter for the Record........................................   322
    McCollum, James E.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   324
    McGlenn, Jill:
        Letter for the Record........................................   326
    McKeown, Joan:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   327
    McLaughlin, Roxanna:
        Letter for the Record........................................   328
    Meagher County (Montana) Board of County Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................   329
    Mesilla Valley Sportsman's Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   330
    Missoula (Montana) Area Chamber of Commerce:
        Letter for the Record........................................   331
    Missoula County (Montana) Board of County Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record to Chairman Murkowski..................   332
    Missouri River Stewards:
        Letter for the Record........................................   333
    Mobley, Jr., Thomas N.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   335
    Montana Association of Counties:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    34
    Montana Farm Bureau Federation:
        Letter for the Record........................................    35
    Montana House of Representatives:
        Letter for the Record........................................    36
        Joint Resolution HJ 9, 65th Legislature......................    38
    Montana Outfitters and Guides Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    43
    Montana Petition in Support of S. 2206...........................    44
    Montana Shooting Sports Association, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    48
    Montana Sportsmen for Fish & Wildlife:
        Letter for the Record........................................    49
    Montana Trail Vehicle Riders Association, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    50
    Montana Trout Unlimited:
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 507.......................   336
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 2206......................   338
    Montana Wilderness Association--Shining Mountain Chapter:
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 507.......................   340
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 2206......................   342
    Montana Wilderness Association:
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 507.......................   344
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 2206......................   352
    Montana Wildlife Federation:
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 507.......................   358
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 2206......................   360
    Montana Wool Growers Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    52
    Moody, Justin:
        Letter for the Record........................................   362
    Moody, Megan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   363
    Moore, Chris and Jan Jackson-Moore:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   364
    Moore, Hon. Frederick D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    53
    National Association of Royalty Owners:
        Letter for the Record........................................   166
    Natural Resources Defense Council:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   365
    New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   368
    New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   370
    New Nevada Lands, LLC and New Nevada Resources, LLC:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   372
    Olson, Amy:
        Letter for the Record........................................   374
    Ortman, Dale:
        Letter for the Record........................................   176
    Peebles, Patricia B.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   375
    Pershing Gold Corporation:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   376
    (The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   381
    Powell, J. Davis:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   167
    Ravalli County (Montana) Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................    54
    Ravalli County Off Road User Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    57
    Rhodes, Doug:
        Letter for the Record........................................   385
    Richardson, Gail and John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   386
    Rinehart, Richard:
        Letter for the Record........................................   387
    Ross, Barbara:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   393
    Russell Country Sportsmen's Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................    59
        Statement for the Record.....................................   394
    Rzasa, Christin:
        Letter for the Record........................................   396
    Schmitz, Rebecca:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   397
    Schultz, Nancy:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   398
    Sealaska Corporation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   400
    Sem, Steve:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   512
    Shaul, Leon D.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   513
    Silliman, Lee:
        Letter for the Record........................................   514
    Sisk, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   515
    Sitka Conservation Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................   518
    Solomon, Kirah:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   520
    Southeast Alaska Conservation Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................   521
    Southeast Alaska Landless Corporation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   528
    Southwest Grazing Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   533
    Southwest Montana Mountain Bike Association:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    61
    Steed, Brian:
        Opening Statement............................................   103
        Written Testimony............................................   105
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   216
    Stewart, Frank:
        Letter for the Record........................................   534
    Territorial Sportsmen, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   535
    Tester, Hon. Jon:
        Opening Statement............................................    71
        Photo of a Montana community gathering.......................    72
        Map showing proposed additions to existing Wilderness Areas
          in Montana.................................................    74
        Photo of Grizzly Basin.......................................    76
    Thurm, Jr., Gary E.:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   536
    Tilly, Kathryn and Joe Rimensberger:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   539
    Tucson (Arizona) City Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................   181
    Udall, Hon. Tom:
        Opening Statement............................................    77
        Statement for the Record in Support of S. 2249...............    78
        Photo of Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument......    81
        Statement for the Record in Support of S. 441................    83
        Letter to Secretary Zinke from the Luna County (New Mexico)
          Sheriff's Department dated 7/6/17..........................    88
    U.S. Department of the Interior:
        Statement for the Record regarding H.R. 995..................   540
    Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   541
    Van Hyning, Dyrck;
        Statement for the Record.....................................   544
        Letter to Tony Tooke, Chief, USDA Forest Service dated 2/10/
          18.........................................................   545
    Vet Voice Foundation:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   548
    Vogel, Dozier Pitt and Theresa A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   172
    Welborn, Hon. Jeff:
        Letter for the Record........................................    62
    Welch, Hon. Tom:
        Letter for the Record........................................    63
    Western Heritage Alliance:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   571
    Western Montana Fish and Game Association, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    64
    Whirry, Gordon:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   573
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................   574
    Winter Wildlands Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   588
    Wolff, Marilyn:
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 2206 dated 1/31/18........   589
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 507 dated 2/8/18..........   597
        Letter for the Record regarding S. 2206 dated 2/22/18........   598
    Woodcock, Charlene M.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   599
    Yerk, Dave:
        Letter for the Record........................................   600

    ----------
    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/2018/2/subcommittee
    020718

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2018

                                   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 10:08 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,
    presiding.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

        Senator Lee [presiding]. The Subcommittee will come to
    order. This is the first legislative hearing of the Public
    Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee in this Congress.
        The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on
    19 bills pending before the Subcommittee.
        Due to the number of bills pending before the Subcommittee
    today on the agenda, I am not going to go through all of them
    now. The complete agenda will be included in the record.
        [The agenda referred to follows:]

                              COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
                             AND NATURAL RESOURCES

               Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                    HEARING ANNOUNCEMENT AND AGENDA

        This notice is to advise you of a legislative hearing
    before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. The hearing
    will be held on Wednesday, February 7, at 10:00 a.m. in Room
    366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
        The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the
    following bills:
       S. 414/H.R. 1107, the Pershing County Economic
            Development and Conservation Act.
       S. 441, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
            Conservation Act.
       S. 507, the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act of
            2017.
       S. 612/H.R. 1547, the Udall Park Land Exchange
            Completion Act.
       S. 1046, the Eastern Nevada Economic Development and
            Land Management Improvement Act.
       S. 1219/H.R. 3392, the Lake Bistineau Land Title
            Stability Act.
       S. 1222, the La Paz County Land Conveyance Act.
       S. 1481, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
            Improvement Act.
       S. 1665/H.R. 2582, the Confirming State Land Grants
            for Education Act.
       S. 2062, the Oracle Cabins Conveyance Act of 2017.
       S. 2206, the Protect Public Use of Public Lands Act.
       S. 2218, the West Fork Fire Station Act of 2017.
       S. 2249, the Rio Puerco Watershed Management
            Program.
       H.R. 995, the 21st Century Respect Act.
       H.R. 1404, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe Land Conveyance
            Act.
        Senator Lee. Some of the agenda items are new to the
    Subcommittee, at least for this Congress. Others we have heard
    before. For those we have heard before, we are going to update
    the record with today's hearing.
        Many of the bills we are considering would correct errors
    made by the Federal Government and hold federal agencies
    accountable, as appropriate, for promises that have been made
    to the states and to indigenous peoples.
        One such bill is the Confirming State Land Grants for
    Education Act, sponsored by my Utah colleague, Senator Hatch,
    and Representative Mia Love. This bill would overcome a
    technical legal hurdle that has prevented the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) from conveying around 500 acres to the State
    of Utah as promised in a land grant when Utah was admitted into
    the Union in 1896. This land grant would enable the Utah School
    and Institutional Trust Lands Administration to develop land
    responsibly in a fast-growing part of the state with the
    proceeds going to fund higher education. I support this bill,
    and I am happy to see the Administration's testimony in support
    of it.
        Another bill that deals with land granted at statehood is
    S. 1219, Senator Cassidy's Lake Bistineau Land Title Stability
    Act. This bill would reaffirm the boundaries of an original
    land survey that was approved in 1842, resolving a title
    conflict for private property owners that has existed since a
    federal re-survey was conducted in 1969.
        Chairman Murkowski is here to speak about her Alaska Native
    Claims Settlement Improvement Act, S. 1481, which would amend
    the ANCSA to settle outstanding aboriginal land claims.
        These commonsense bills would hold the Federal Government
    accountable for promises that have been made to our
    constituents. I look forward to hearing from the BLM and the
    Forest Service about their plans to keep these promises.
        With that, we will turn to Senator Heinrich for his
    remarks.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        I know we have a full slate this morning, so I just want to
    take a moment to highlight two bills affecting New Mexico's
    public lands on today's agenda.
        I want to thank, in particular, my colleague from New
    Mexico, Senator Udall, for his superb leadership on these bills
    over the course of many years now.
        First, the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation Act
    would complete the community proposal for the region included
    in the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument that was
    designated in 2014. This monument has been a tremendous success
    for Dona Ana County in just four years since its designation.
    But only Congress can complete the original vision for this
    area, accomplishing a number of things that cannot be done
    administratively, including improving operational flexibility
    for Customs and Border Patrol, protecting the important
    missions at Fort Bliss from encroachment by incompatible
    development, and designating wilderness in its backcountry.
        Second, the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program
    Reauthorization Act would permanently authorize this incredibly
    important program. The Rio Puerco was the largest contributor
    of sediment to the Rio Grande, and the Rio Puerco Management
    Committee coordinated by the BLM has done important work since
    1996 to restore the natural hydrology of the river, control
    erosion, and restore natural vegetation. The current
    authorization expires next year, and this legislation would
    ensure that the program can continue to do this critical work
    to protect the quality of New Mexico's water.
        I know that we have many bills before us today that are
    important to their sponsor's home states, and I look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses on each of them today.
        Senator Lee. A couple of members have asked for the
    opportunity to speak about their bills.
        We were going to begin with Chairman Murkowski, who is not
    here yet, so we will go next to Senator Cassidy.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

        Senator Cassidy. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Lee.
        Our bill, S. 1219, the Lake Bistineau Land Title Stability
    Act, would void the 1967 survey of lands near Lake Bistineau
    and nullify the legal effect of any future land surveys of the
    affected areas. And just a background--
        In 1838, the Federal Government did a survey of this. It
    was accepted in 1842. Using the results of this survey, the
    state outlined its ownership of land and transferred 7,000
    acres of land around Lake Bistineau to the Commissioners of the
    Bossier Levy District in 1901, who three years later conveyed
    this to private ownership.
        In 1967, BLM resurveyed the land and two additional islands
    and this survey presented a new boundary line based on what BLM
    thought the size of Lake Bistineau was in 1812. So it is 1967
    and they are making an estimate of what was the effect in 1812,
    ignoring the survey in 1842. This resurvey was conducted more
    than a century after the original survey in an area subject to
    various changes in landscape. This resurvey would actually
    allege to be a corrected representation of a boundary from 155
    years before.
        Although the BLM published a notice in the Federal Register
    two years later stating that the new survey occurred, the
    agency did not notify affected landowners that the new survey
    served as a BLM claim to the land. Further, the agency did not
    file its claim on local property records or take any other
    action to claim title to the land. BLM notes that a Federal
    Register notice was published at a local post office, at the
    Bossier Parish Recorder of Deeds and in a local newspaper.
    However, according to legal counsel for selected landowners,
    this does not satisfy state law for a public records notice.
        In September 2013, after inquiry from some private
    landowners, BLM responded that their survey appeared to be
    ``still vested in the United States based on the results of the
    1967 survey.''
        Since then, the Federal Government has been in dispute over
    the ownership of roughly 200 acres of land occupied by more
    than 100 private landowners. And according to legal counsel for
    some of these landowners, the vast majority of owners are not
    aware of the BLM claim. In fact, private commerce continues in
    the area as if no federal claim had been made.
        We hope to rectify this by allowing the original survey to
    be the basis for the United States claim and transfer the land
    to the private owners, who feel like they own the land.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cortez Masto.

               STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate
    the opportunity today and am very excited to be able to be on
    the Committee at the same time, introducing two bills that are
    going to have an impact on Nevada.
        I thank my colleagues for ensuring that these bills are on
    the agenda. They are critical to the people of Northern Nevada:
    S. 414, which is the Pershing County Economic Development and
    Conservation Act; and S. 1046, the Eastern Nevada Economic
    Development and Land Management Improvement Act.
        As this Committee knows well, the great State of Nevada has
    a proud history of strong bipartisan work on legislation
    pertaining to land management.
        I am so proud of the community-led advocacy and support we
    have earned from the people of Nevada that has been reflected
    in the testimony and, excuse me, will be reflected in the
    testimony of my colleague, Senator Dean Heller, who is here
    today as well. Together, we have continued the proud legacy he
    fostered with Senator Reid on developing bipartisan land bills
    that prioritize local economic development, preserve lands for
    the benefit of future generations, and heed the voices and
    needs of local communities.
        I would like to just take a quick moment to talk a little
    bit about the two bills.
        S. 414, the Pershing County Economic Development and
    Conservation Act. This bipartisan bill aims to resolve a number
    of public lands issues in Pershing County, Nevada, while
    preserving and protecting seven new wilderness areas in some of
    the most remote and beautiful parts of Nevada. This legislation
    creates over 136,000 acres of wilderness within Pershing
    County, nearly 36,000 more than the current wilderness study
    area acreage. It also establishes a process for dealing with
    checkerboard land status and disposes of some mining lands.
        In Pershing County, 75 percent of the land is federally-
    owned and this bill particularly reflects compromise among
    several interests. Pershing County has struggled with the
    checkerboard federal private land pattern, which impacts many
    of us in the West, that cuts through the county.
        Much of the land ownership scheme created by the Pacific
    Railroad Act because of this checkerboard has created
    management inefficiencies for both federal and private land
    managers. What was then an innovative way to spark development
    has resulted in fractured ownership.
        The bill will do three very specific things: aims to create
    more efficient land management; creates a checkerboard
    resolution program that has a goal of prioritizing lands best
    suited for development along the Interstate 80 corridor in
    coordination with the Bureau of Land Management; and allows
    both local communities and federal agencies to work together.
    This way they are able to identify areas within the
    checkerboard that are better suited for federal management such
    as sage-grouse habitat, recreation areas, wildlife preservation
    areas, and other important public use purposes, and together
    consolidate public and private lands for exchange or restricted
    sale.
        S. 414 identifies lands for potential sale to entities that
    hold mineral rights or are actively mining on those lands.
    These mining areas would be regulated by the State of Nevada
    and reclaimed under Nevada's state law, which is a nationwide
    model for mining regulation and reclamation. Under federal law,
    after the mining project is over, mining companies are required
    to restore the land back to a naturalized version.
    Unfortunately, this requirement creates challenges to the
    economic development of rural communities in Nevada. State law
    allows these industrial areas to be repurposed to continue
    harnessing America's energy future, allowing them to be
    transitioned at the end of their mining life span into
    renewable energy projects. And lastly, the bill designates
    nearly 140,000 acres of wilderness in seven areas throughout
    Pershing County to continue as wilderness study areas while
    allowing for the addition of new citizens' proposed areas that
    protect vast seas of sagebrush, magnificent antelope herds, and
    jagged, mountainous peaks. And let me just say, I understand
    there are some stakeholders that have particular issues with
    the legislation. I look forward to working with them to address
    those concerns.
        And then S. 1046, the Eastern Nevada Economic Development
    and Land Management Improvement Act, makes crucial corrections
    and fixes to previously enacted legislation covering Lincoln
    and White Pine Counties. These improvements enable the Bureau
    of Land Management to better administer watersheds and wildlife
    habitat as well as diversify and expand the economy of Lincoln
    County.
        The bill attempts to balance development and conservation
    needs within the impacted counties and allows BLM to more fully
    implement its Ely District Resource Area Management Plan,
    protect critical sage-grouse habitat, reduce hazardous fuel
    buildups, authorize rangeland and grassland restoration
    projects, and establish cooperative agreements between counties
    and the BLM.
        The House companion to this bill passed with near unanimous
    support in the last Congress, and I hope it will enjoy that
    same level of support in the Senate. I look forward to working
    with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move
    these bills forward.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Senator Daines.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Lee.
        I want to extend a warm welcome to Senator Tester. It is
    good to have two Montana Senators here in the same room.
        [Laughter.]
        Today we are going to hear testimony on two Montana bills.
    One is my bill, Senate bill 2206, the Protect Public Use of
    Public Lands Act, and the other is Senator Tester's bill,
    Senate bill 507, the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act.
    These are being considered separately on their own merits.
        Let me speak to my bill first. As a fifth generation
    Montanan, an avid outdoorsman, someone who probably spent more
    time at wilderness areas in August than any other U.S. Senator,
    I know how important public lands are to Montanans.
        Perhaps, just a moment of history. In 1977, Congress passed
    the Montana Wilderness Study Act--Jimmy Carter was President--
    and what it did, it created 973,000 acres and designated them
    as wilderness study areas (WSAs). The task was given to the
    Forest Service. They said, go look at these acreages and
    determine which are suitable for wilderness and which are not
    suitable for wilderness. Well, that study was completed. But
    here we are 40 years later in DC paralysis which has prevented
    more public access to our public lands. My bill will help
    unlock some of our public lands, those that have been deemed
    not suitable for wilderness, and return more access to public
    hands.
        So let's get the facts. Since 1977 when these four service
    wilderness study areas were created, 1.8 million Montana acres
    had been designated as wilderness; however, only about 153,000
    acres of wilderness study areas, and that includes both Forest
    Service study areas and BLM, have been released. And yet, 1.1
    million Montana acres still remain locked up as wilderness
    study areas.
        My bill only releases 449,500 acres covering five WSAs
    which leaves more than 640,000 acres of WSAs not in this bill
    at this time. In other words, it is proposing to release less
    than half. And that means even if we released all of Montana's
    WSAs that are not suitable for wilderness, and to be clear we
    are not addressing or touching those that are suitable for
    wilderness, these are lands that have been studied by the
    Forest Service and the BLM and determined not suitable for
    wilderness in their final plan. In other words, if we released
    all of them there would still be about twice as much wilderness
    designation since 1977 as those that would release if we
    released all of it.
        I put these five WSAs in my bill for two simple reasons.
    First, they have strong, local support for release, on-the-
    ground grassroots support. As you can see behind me, that
    support spans tens of thousands of Montanans from local elected
    officials, every single county commission, the Montana State
    Legislature as well as recreation, sportsmen, and other groups.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit their
    statements for the record today.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        [The statements referred to follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. The second reason is that the Forest
    Service determined that they were not suitable for wilderness
    in their final plan, and I am pleased that the Forest Service
    supports this bill today.
        But next, this bill will maintain public input in land
    uses. It is very much a bottoms-up approach. My bill means more
    public access. It means more public input, not less. And if
    there are other wilderness study areas across Montana that have
    local support as time goes on, I will include them in the bill
    because I have not included every acre that has been deemed not
    suitable for wilderness designation.
        Finally, removing these WSA designations would not strip
    protections from the land, a very important point. Here are the
    facts. These acres are covered by the roadless rule which
    restricts uses like timber harvest and mining, and these lands
    will be governed according to existing forest and travel plan
    guidelines until an amendment process, a public process,
    ensues.
        I also understand Senator Tester's Blackfoot Clearwater
    Stewardship Act is on the agenda today as well.
        I want to welcome Mack and Connie Long, who came here from
    Montana. Legendary outfitters, they have been a very important
    part of this collaborative to putting this Act together.
        I know this is an important bill that brings forth, truly,
    local collaborative agreement that has been agreed upon by
    timber stakeholders, wilderness advocates, and outfitters. I
    commend the hard work of this collaborative, and I look forward
    to exploring this measure further during the question and
    answer portion of today's hearing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Senator Gardner.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having this hearing today.
        In 2013, the West Fort Complex Fire burned more than
    109,000 acres in the Rio Grande and San Juan National Forests
    in Colorado, as well as some private lands.
        The potential for severe fire in much of Colorado's forests
    remain, due in large part to overgrowth and subsequent beetle
    kill epidemics. Western counties that contain or border
    federally managed forests need to ensure that they can provide
    protective services that naturally come from living in these
    areas like forest fires.
        The Dolores County's West Fork fire area has typically
    received fire support from neighboring Montezuma County in an
    increasingly expensive and logistically complicated
    arrangement. Currently the Dolores Fire Station is located 26
    miles away and many of those miles are mountain road miles,
    meaning you will not be able to do 50 miles per hour for much
    of it.
        The purpose of the legislation that we have before us today
    is to convey a very small 3.61-acre parcel of Forest Service
    land that abuts an existing road allowing a fire station to be
    built in the area. This fire station will decrease response
    times for residents in West Fork, solve a non-insurability
    issue that they have faced because of the lack of their
    proximity to a fire station, and provide a staging area much
    closer to potential fire outbreaks on the western edge of the
    San Juan National Forest. Dolores County has procured the fire
    equipment and trained firefighters. Additionally, through a
    generous donation from a resident in the area, the construction
    cost of the fire stations are sure to be met.
        I would like to enter this letter, if I could with
    unanimous consent, of support from the Dolores County Board of
    County Commissioners for the record.
        Senator Lee. It will be admitted without objection.
        [The letter of support referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Gardner. This legislation is a mutually beneficial
    conveyance for both the Forest Service and Dolores County. I
    was proud to work with Senator Bennet, my colleague, and
    Congressman Tipton to introduce this legislation. I look
    forward to seeing this bill move through the legislative
    process.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to talk about
    this legislation today.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Are there any other members of the Subcommittee wishing to
    make a short statement on legislation today?
        If not, we will start hearing from some of our other
    members who are not on the Subcommittee but who have joined us
    today.
        We will start with you, Senator Heller.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

        Senator Heller. Chairman Lee, thank you, and to the Ranking
    Member, for holding this hearing today. I want to thank the
    Committee.
        Most of you are very familiar with some of these land
    issues, and I am appreciative of that knowledge, but I also
    want to thank my colleague, also from Nevada, for her help and
    support in making this bipartisan legislation.
        I am here to talk on the issues that she made mention to
    and that is the Pershing County Economic Development and
    Conservation Act, Senate bill 414, and the Eastern Nevada
    Economic Development and Land Management Improvement Act,
    Senate bill 1046.
        Both of these bills are products of grassroots efforts to
    solve public lands issues in my state and both represent years
    of hard work by affected communities. For years residents of
    the Pershing County have worked to produce and develop this
    proposal to provide their community new opportunities for
    economic development and increase outdoor recreational
    activities and opportunities.
        It builds on the efforts of the Pershing County
    Checkerboard Lands Committee. Yes, there is a Checkerboard
    Lands Committee in this particular county. It was initiated
    about a decade ago, and it was a community-driven process to
    solve these land management issues. And they were hashed out by
    a grassroot-driven public process, including the county
    officials, local residents, and stakeholders.
        As most of you know, over 75 percent of the land within
    this county is administered by the Federal Government and much
    of the land is in a checkerboard pattern. A remnant of railroad
    construction of the 1800s, these checkerboard lands now
    represent and present a major land management problem: it is
    confusing for sportsmen and other outdoor recreationalists, it
    limits economic development opportunities along the I-80
    corridor, it is a bureaucratic headache for BLM and private
    landowners, and resolving this mess in a commonsense manner
    will benefit all Nevadans.
        First, it advances a sell and exchange plan for BLM lands
    in Pershing County already identified for disposal by the BLM
    resource management plans. And this process is modeled after
    the highly successful Southern Nevada Public Lands Management
    Act, SNPLMA, that has facilitated sustainable development in
    the Las Vegas Valley since its enactment. So together with the
    Pershing County and the Department of the Interior, they will
    select lands and parcels to be sold through a competitive
    bidding process for no less than fair market value, ensuring a
    fair return for the American taxpayer. Responsibly facilitating
    these land sales and exchanges will increase the county's tax
    base and outdoor recreational opportunities, spur economic
    development, and improve land stewardship.
        Second, it will facilitate the expansion and development of
    mining projects, existing mining projects, within Pershing
    County. The county has a wide variety of mineral resources, but
    silver, gold and tungsten have been mainstays for more than a
    century and a half. And this initiative will increase economic
    growth, yield millions of dollars in investments in the county
    and greatly improve the county's tax base.
        Third, it will also allow Pershing County to acquire land
    in the Unionville Cemetery which was established in the 1870s.
    This cemetery is part of a historic, unincorporated mining town
    of Unionville, Nevada, where Mark Twain lived for a period of
    time. The land that comprises the cemetery was thought to have
    been on private grounds, but at some point it was discovered
    that the cemetery lies on BLM land and BLM now is prohibiting
    new burials there. By transferring this land to the county, the
    cemetery will be able to get back into use.
        Finally, the bill resolves some longstanding land
    designations within the county. Five wilderness study areas
    within the county have been in limbo for nearly 30 years, all
    being managed as wilderness. These areas were looked at by the
    residents on the ground and boundaries were carefully designed.
    The resulting maps conserve important wildlife habitat ensuring
    existing road access into wilderness and resolves local
    rancher's issues with the current wilderness study area
    boundaries that will provide their operations more flexibility
    and stability moving forward. So you can see, this proposal in
    its entirety will yield major benefits, not only for Pershing
    County but also the American people.
        It is important to note that this non-controversial
    legislation has unanimous support of Nevada's Congressional
    delegation. Companion legislation, H.R. 1107, introduced by my
    good friend, Congressman Mark Amodei, passed the House of
    Representatives by voice vote on January 16th. It has garnered
    a diverse group of stakeholders including the support of
    business groups like Nevada Mining Association, Nevada Farm
    Bureau Federation, Coalition of Nevada's Wildlife and even
    environmental groups like the Friends of the Nevada Wilderness.
    That support is indicative of the residents' hard work to
    develop a lands package that balances the opinions of diverse
    stakeholders.
        I do also want to testify in support of my legislation, the
    Eastern Nevada Economic Development and Land Management
    Improvement Act, introduced alongside with my colleague,
    Senator Cortez Masto.
        I can see, Mr. Chairman, that my time has run out.
        Without giving you the details of this, I do want to share
    with you the importance of both of these pieces of legislation,
    and I am more than willing to work with this Subcommittee to
    make sure that we move both of these pieces of legislation
    forward.
        Thank you.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Heller.
        Senator Tester.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

        Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member
    Heinrich, for holding this hearing on the Blackfoot Clearwater
    Stewardship Act. I know you have a full agenda today. I
    appreciate you taking time for this important piece of
    legislation.
        It is an honor and a privilege to advocate for a made-in-
    Montana solution on our federal lands. I am going to tell you
    what this bill does right from the beginning here. It preserves
    one of the most unique landscapes in the country for future
    generations, for our kids and grandkids; it increases trail use
    and recreational opportunities for those who love our outdoors;
    it strengthens the local timber industry in Western Montana;
    and maybe most importantly, it provides a blueprint for
    breaking the gridlock that is plaguing our forests.
        I am going to tell you this bill was not drafted in a back
    room in Washington, DC, influenced by DC lobbyists. This bill
    was started over ten years ago with folks, some are in the back
    of the room and I will introduce them in a bit, that worked
    with their neighbors. They worked with folks from the logging
    industry, from the environmentalists, from conservation, from
    recreation, and came to an agreement on a bill.
        Now I am going to tell you for those of you that know the
    situation--ten years ago if you put a logger and a
    conservationist, an environmentalist and a recreationalist in
    the same room, at the same table, chances are somebody was not
    going to come out of that room. But these folks had the ability
    to sit down and compromise and come up with a made-in-Montana
    solution for a federal forest. I can tell you this, and I think
    we can all agree to this, DC can learn a lot from what these
    people have done.
        So Mack and Connie and the rest of the folks from Montana,
    if you would stand up, we will give you the proper thank you
    for being here--we appreciate it, appreciate it very, very
    much.
        There are some folks in the photo here that were also part
    of that compromise, and from that compromise we have seen $19
    million flow into the region for forest restoration and timber
    harvest.
        [The photo referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Tester. This investment has created and sustained
    more than 100 jobs and an additional $33 million in economic
    activity. With active forest management now done, it is time to
    fulfill the rest of this agreement and that is exactly what
    this bill does.
        The Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act, as you can see on
    the map behind me, protects 79,000 acres of wilderness for the
    next generation.
        [The map referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Tester. Why is this important? This is the same
    kind of area that powers a $7 billion economy in the State of
    Montana and 74,000 jobs. This pristine land is near the
    Continental Divide, the Crown of the Continent, home to grizzly
    bears, elk, moose, wolverines, deer, and beavers. Well, you get
    the idea, okay?
        This bill also empowers a community to stay involved,
    moving forward on new recreational trail proposals for hikers,
    anglers, hunters, and anyone who wants to spend an afternoon
    breathing the fresh mountain air. It opens up 2,000 acres for
    snowmobiling and 38,000 acres for trail-based recreation,
    including mountain biking. It is a bill that everybody wins
    with. And most importantly, it builds a blueprint for future
    forest management compromises.
        As you can see, the wilderness designation of this bill is
    added to existing wilderness like Bob Marshall, Scapegoat, and
    Mission Mountain Wilderness. Each year, thousands of folks
    flock to this region to experience some of the last untouched
    landscapes in this country and, absolutely, in the Lower 48.
    While they are here, they eat, they shop, they sleep, they
    drink, they spend their money at local businesses in Seeley
    Lake and Ovando.
        And this isn't just a land management bill. For the folks
    that live here, it is a jobs bill.
        This is what we are trying to protect.
        [The photo referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Tester. Thousands of years ago, glaciers cut
    through this valley creating one of the most special places in
    this country. God doesn't make places like this anymore. And
    the folks who call this land home have decided that they want
    to protect it for their kids and their grandkids.
        Again, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, I want to thank you for
    holding this hearing today. This bill is a result of people
    working together to find solutions in our forests so everybody
    can win. There are no losers. Timber harvests are well
    underway. The trail maps are printed. Now we, Congress, this
    Committee, need to complete this local agreement and protect
    these landscapes for future generations.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. I
    appreciate your time.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Tester.
        Senator Udall.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member
    Heinrich, for the opportunity to provide a statement to the
    Subcommittee in support of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
    Conservation Act, S. 441, and the permanent reauthorization of
    the 20-year-old Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, S.
    2249. I appreciate the Administration's support for the goals
    of both pieces of legislation and look forward to working with
    them to get this enacted.
        I will quickly speak to the Rio Puerco Watershed Management
    Program. This is a successful collaboration that has won the
    EPA's Environmental Excellence Award and the BLM's Legacy of
    the Land Award. It stems from erosion and what the U.S. Army
    Corps of Engineers classifies as the most eroded watershed in
    the country. I hope this Committee will continue to support
    their outstanding work and reauthorize the program.
        I ask that my full statement be added to the record for S.
    2249.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        [Senator Udall's statement on S. 2249 follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        Turning to the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks Conservation
    Area, I would like to thank my co-sponsor, Senator Heinrich,
    who is now in the role of the Ranking Member here. I know he is
    a valuable member of this Committee. He and his staff did a lot
    of the on-the-ground work, along with me and my staff. Our goal
    was to craft consensus legislation that addresses all
    stakeholders' needs and interests to the greatest extent
    possible. I firmly believe we have done that.
        Protecting Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks is a grassroots
    effort that began a decade ago. This community support led to
    the first Congressional efforts in 2009 when Senator Jeff
    Bingaman and I introduced legislation to create wilderness in
    portions of this area. President Obama's 2014 designation of
    Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument had broad
    support in the local community and in New Mexico, especially in
    Dona Ana County, where the vast majority of the lands are
    located. And S. 441, which complements the designation and
    gives permanent protection to some of New Mexico's most special
    lands, has the same broad support.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        According to a 2016 poll, 78 percent of Dona Ana County
    voters support legislation making the wilderness study areas in
    Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks permanent wilderness. A wilderness
    designation will enhance recreational opportunities in these
    pristine areas for hiking as well as preserve traditional
    hunting and grazing uses and protect sensitive archeological
    sites from destruction.
        National monument status brings important economic benefits
    as well, and the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks is no exception.
        From 2015 to 2016, visitors to the monument more than
    doubled. Increased tourism means increased spending at local
    restaurants, hotels, outdoor businesses, and arts and crafts
    shops, leading to an increase in our tax base.
        The legislation before you has been modified since the
    original 2009 bill to address concerns raised by stakeholders.
    First, we worked closely with the U.S. Border Patrol to ensure
    the bill would not interfere with their responsibilities. S.
    441 releases 30,000 acres of existing wilderness study area
    near the border to protect border security. It expands the
    buffer from the international border from one-third of a mile
    to five miles. The buffer would prohibit motorized off-road
    access by the general public for two miles. But the Border
    Patrol and other law enforcement may patrol and construct
    communication and surveillance infrastructure.
        The wilderness boundary excludes specific sites used by
    Border Patrol for its Mobile Surveillance System and a
    communications tower that is critical to closing radio coverage
    gaps for Dona Ana County Sheriffs officers' safety and
    communication effectiveness.
        The bill gives Border Patrol and other law enforcement
    special access to an East-West route in the Potrillo Mountains
    Wilderness to conduct border security operations. In addition,
    the bill reiterates that the Border Patrol can, in accordance
    with the Wilderness Act, enter these lands as necessary, such
    as when they are in pursuit of a suspect.
        Former Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner Alan Bersin
    and Acting Commissioner Thomas Winkowski are on record that the
    bill's provisions ``would significantly enhance the flexibility
    of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to operate in this border
    area.''
        I would like the rest of my statement to go fully into the
    record and really look forward to working with this Committee
    and working with Senator Heinrich and you, Chairman Lee, on
    getting this done.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
        Senator Lee. Without objection, your full statement will be
    admitted into the record.
        Thank you, Senator Udall.
        [Senator Udall's full statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thanks to each of you who have joined us this
    morning.
        Senator Udall. Senator Lee, we also had a letter that I
    would like to put in from the sheriffs in the area down there,
    with your permission.
        Thank you.
        Senator Lee. Wonderful. Those will be admitted without
    objection.
        [The letters of support follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Okay.
        We are now going to hear from two witnesses who we will
    call to the table at this point.
        We have two witnesses providing testimony on behalf of the
    Administration today. The first is Mr. Glenn Casamassa, the
    Associate Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. The second
    is Mr. Brian Steed, the Deputy Director for Policy and Programs
    at the Bureau of Land Management.
        At the end of their opening statements this morning,
    members will be allowed to ask questions. Your full written
    testimony will, of course, be made part of the official record
    of this hearing. Please keep your statements to five minutes so
    that we can have time for questions after you have made those
    statements.
        We will start first with you, 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, Ranking Member
    Heinrich, members of the Subcommittee, for inviting me here
    today to testify on behalf of the USDA and the Forest Service
    regarding the bills under consideration. My written testimony
    has been provided for the record.
        To begin with, we appreciate the inclusion of Section 3 in
    Senate bill 1046, the Eastern Nevada Economic Development Act,
    which would meet several wilderness boundary adjustments on the
    Toiyabe National Forest. These adjustments will improve
    wilderness management and allow for appropriate non-wilderness
    uses to continue as intended by the original enabling
    legislation.
        Senate bill 2218, the West Fork Fire Station Act, would
    convey a small parcel of land on the San Juan National Forest
    to Delores, Colorado, to facilitate construction of a fire
    station. We agree that this is a suitable location to provide
    improved emergency services in the rural area and look forward
    to working with Delores County to accomplish this conveyance.
        Senate bill 507, the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act,
    seeks to implement a variety of restoration and recreation
    improvements and would designate additional wilderness on the
    Lolo National Forest in the State of Montana. We support the
    goals of this bill as well as the local collaborative process
    of which it is based, and we support the wilderness designation
    as they are consistent with the long-standing recommendations
    and management direction from our forest planning process. We
    look forward to continuing our work with the local
    collaborative and Senator Tester on specifics to realize
    successful implementation.
        Senate bill 2206, the Protect Public Use of Public Lands
    Act, would release five wilderness study areas on National
    Forest lands in Montana from the requirements of the 1977
    Wilderness Study Areas Act. We support this release as the
    areas have been studied under the provisions of the 1977 Act
    and, to date, none of the five designations have been
    recommended to Congress for wilderness designation. We note
    that these are all within inventoried roadless areas and
    subject to management requirements to maintain roadless
    character as well as requirements under travel management
    planning, forest planning and other applicable law.
        Senate bill 2062, the Oracle Cabins Conveyance Act, would
    convey these three parcels of land on the Coronado National
    Forest in Arizona to holders of permits for cabins being used
    as primary residence. The history of cabin use across the
    National Forest has created very challenging scenarios for
    managers and permit holders. We are sympathetic to this
    particular situation this bill is designed to address and hope
    to work with affected permittees and with Senator Flake and the
    Committee to pursue all administrative options currently
    available to resolve the situation.
        Since both the BLM and the Forest Service are testifying on
    Senate bill 1481, the Alaska Native Settlement Claims
    Improvement Act, my comments focus on Section 5, which
    addresses the Forest Service purchase of land in Cube Cove from
    Shee Atika Incorporated, and Section 6, which directs a land
    exchange between Sealaska Corporation and the Forest Service.
        The USDA generally does not have concerns with Section 5 of
    the bill; however, we have a technical issue with the
    assignment of responsibilities that we would like to discuss
    with Senator Murkowski and the Committee.
        I would also like to emphasize that the Forest Service is
    administratively moving forward with the purchase of this land.
    So far, we have purchased over half of the 23,000 acres of
    surface estate in Cube Cove from Shee Atika Incorporated. If
    the Land and Water Conservation Funds become available, we will
    purchase another four segments this year.
        Section 6 directs the exchange of subsurface estate owned
    by Sealaska Corporation at Cube Cove for a mixture of
    subsurface and surface estate within the Tongass National
    Forest. Although the USDA agrees with the goals of this
    section, we believe the exchange should be completed using an
    equal value exchange following existing regulations and
    policies.
        Finally, H.R. 995, the 21st Century Respect Act, would
    amend regulations affecting USDA's rural development agency to
    update terms of racial background and place of origin. USDA
    supports these changes.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today and I
    look forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Casamassa follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Steed.

             STATEMENT OF BRIAN STEED, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR
    POLICY AND PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT
                            OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Steed. Good morning, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member
    Heinrich and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you so much for
    the opportunity to be here today.
        My name is Brian Steed. I'm the Deputy Director of Programs
    and Policy at BLM and, in light of the number of bills
    considered today, I will keep my time short to briefly
    summarize my written statements on the 10 bills related to BLM
    in so doing.
        S. 1481 amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and
    other laws to provide specific Alaska Native Corporations and
    communities with resources administered by the National Park
    Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM. The Department
    supports S. 1481 and would like to work with the sponsors on
    minor modifications.
        S. 1665 authorizes the State of Utah to select certain BLM-
    managed public lands in fulfillment of land grants made under
    the Utah Enabling Act of 1894 without further land use planning
    action necessary by the BLM. The Department has no objection
    with the state selection of these lands and supports the goals
    of S. 1665 to fulfill those specific land grants.
        S. 612 would require the Department to convey at no cost
    the reversionary interest in a 173-acre parcel of the City of
    Tucson, Arizona. The Department supports the goals of conveying
    reversionary interests and could support the bill if amended to
    ensure a payment at fair market value for the interest as
    required under FLPMA. We also recognize that there may be
    circumstances, as determined by Congress, in which public
    benefits of a proposed transfer outweigh financial
    considerations.
        S. 1222 would convey approximately 8,000 acres managed by
    the BLM to La Paz County, Arizona, for uses consistent with the
    Recreation and Public Purposes Act. The Department is concerned
    that the conveyance's large size and intended scope or intended
    purpose would ultimately be inconsistent with the R&PP Act. We
    support the overall objectives of the bill and would like to
    work with the sponsor on modifications that will meet the needs
    of La Paz County and benefit the American people.
        S. 441 would designate eight new wilderness areas and
    includes direction for future management of additional public
    lands in Dona Ana County, New Mexico. While the Department
    supports Congressional action to resolve the status of
    wilderness study areas, we have concerns about the bill's
    impact on public access, recreation, and border security.
        S. 414, Pershing County authorizes the public land sales,
    exchanges, and conveyances and designates seven new wilderness
    areas on BLM-managed public lands in Pershing County, Nevada.
    While the Secretary does not support widescale transfer or sale
    of federal lands, we are willing to work with the sponsors to
    draft language to resolve this issue. The Secretary appreciates
    the work of Senator Heller on this bill and his efforts to
    promote multiple uses and foster economic development on BLM
    lands in Nevada.
        S. 1046 authorizes funding for fuels reduction projects and
    wildfire prevention planning and other habitat enhancement
    projects in Lincoln County, Nevada. The bill also authorizes
    funding for various public infrastructure projects and related
    rights-of-way in White Pine County, Nevada, and requires the
    completion of a conveyance to White Pine County. The Department
    supports the goals of the bill and would like to work with the
    sponsors on a few minor modifications.
        S. 1219 attempts to resolve land ownership conflicts around
    Lake Bistineau in Louisiana. The Department supports the goal
    of providing certainty to landowners and acknowledges the
    historical complexities associated with these lands. We also
    recognize Congress' authority to resolve title conflicts unique
    to local communities where the public benefit may outweigh
    financial considerations.
        S. 2249 would permanently reauthorize the Rio Puerco
    Watershed Management Committee. The Department recognizes that
    the Committee has been a collaborative tool for addressing the
    health of the Rio Puerco Watershed and does not object to its
    reauthorization but would recommend a reauthorization of a 10-
    year period allowing for a periodic review from Congress.
        H.R. 1404 would take a 40-acre parcel of land near Tucson,
    Arizona, into trust for the benefit of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe,
    if certain conditions are met, and authorizes the conveyance of
    approximately 40 acres of adjacent land to the Tucson Unified
    School District at fair market value. The Department supports
    H.R. 1404.
        Thank you, again, to members of the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to testify on this diverse set of lands bills. I'm
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Steed follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Steed, and it is
    always good to have you with us, a good Utahan in the room.
        We are going to turn now to five-minute rounds of
    questions. I am going to hold my questions back until other
    members have had the chance to do so. We will start with
    Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        First I want to thank Mr. Steed for his willingness to work
    with Senator Udall and me on provisions of this bill to ensure
    that this spectacular landscape in Southern New Mexico is
    protected for generations to come.
        I do have a few questions about your testimony, Mr. Steed.
    In particular, I have here a letter from Customs and Border
    Protection that says that this legislation would
    ``significantly enhance the flexibility of U.S. Customs and
    Border Protection to operate in this border area.''
        [The letter referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Heinrich. We actually release over 30,000 acres of
    wilderness study area in order to make that flexibility
    possible.
        So other than the obvious political changes here in
    Washington, DC, since this letter was written, what has changed
    in this section of the New Mexico border in the last 18 months
    that would make this legislation no longer a significant
    enhancement of flexibility for Border Patrol in the area?
        Mr. Steed. As to the specifics in this area, Senator
    Heinrich, you know, I can't really say.
        What I can say is that general practice, it's been our
    understanding that----
        Senator Heinrich. Your testimony makes assertions about
    this.
        Mr. Steed. Correct.
        Senator Heinrich. So I would expect you to have an answer
    to that question.
        Mr. Steed. Sure.
        And as I was saying, in lands that are more restrictive in
    use, it's been our experience that it's more difficult to
    operate patrol and other enforcement on the border. It's been
    also our sad experience that cartels and other criminal
    elements are absolutely willing to exploit those.
        Senator Heinrich. Sure.
        So, Mr. Steed, have you spent time on this section of the
    border?
        Mr. Steed. I have not been to this area.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, I have spent a substantial amount
    of time on this section of the border with Border Patrol agents
    so that we could craft this proposal with their input, which is
    exactly why we created a buffer zone that releases these areas.
    It is exactly why we built the mobile surveillance sites into
    the legislation. So if you are going to make assertions that
    this would somehow create a more difficult operating situation
    on the ground, on the border, I would like to know what those
    assertions are based on.
        Mr. Steed. Certainly.
        Senator, the bill proposes a large amount of wilderness
    area in proximity to the border. Because of the restrictions
    associated with wilderness, especially those that withhold the
    ability for motorized patrol, I think it's very difficult to
    say that this enhances security.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, it actually creates a zone of
    motorized patrol between the border and the wilderness areas.
        Mr. Steed. That's correct, although in other areas----
        Senator Heinrich. In addition, have you looked at the data
    on the El Paso sector as to where the most problems are and
    where the fewest problems are in terms of border crossings?
    Because one of the things that these roadless areas have
    effectively done is make it a lot harder for cartels and other
    people trying to move illegal contraband over the border to be
    able to move north and south, which has a very positive impact
    on our ability to actually apprehend illegal activity and
    illegal persons before they get to these areas.
        Mr. Steed. Senator Heinrich, I appreciate your view on
    that. I can say that in other areas that's not been our
    experience and we're concerned.
        I was on the phone last night with our law enforcement
    folks in Arizona. They were meeting with Border Patrol.
        Senator Heinrich. But this is not in Arizona. This is the
    El Paso sector. This is New Mexico.
        Mr. Steed. No, I understand that, sir.
        I'm saying that in similar areas----
        Senator Heinrich. I would just ask that you become more
    intimately familiar with this actual section of border and the
    challenges that we face along it before you make assertions.
        Mr. Steed. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Lee. Chairman Murkowski.
        The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        I will be brief this morning.
        I want to thank Mr. Casamassa and Mr. Steed. Thank you for
    being here. Thank you for your comments.
        I do not have any questions for you this morning, but I
    would just like to take a very quick moment to speak about S.
    1481, which is the ANCSA Improvement Act, which modifies and
    improves the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
        This Committee has heard some of the history, but to repeat
    a little bit. Back in 1971, Congress passed ANCSA to settle the
    aboriginal land claims of Alaska Natives which cleared the way
    for Alaska Natives to receive 44 million acres of land and $962
    million of compensation. The law also pioneered a new method
    for U.S. treatment of Native Americans through the
    establishment of corporations to provide a continuing stream of
    income to help improve the lives of Alaska Natives.
        The ANCSA-derived land and money was distributed through 13
    regional corporations and 220 village and urban corporations.
    While many of the promises under ANCSA have been met, there are
    a number of issues that have arisen that have prevented its
    intent from being realized. For example, the Act specifically
    established village corporations for any town that had 25
    native residents in 1970 and that met other criteria, but for
    some unexplained reasons, we still don't know exactly why, five
    towns in Southeast Alaska--Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg,
    Tenakee and Haines--were not allowed to form village or urban
    corporations. And while the history is complex, there is no
    question that all five of these communities met the historic
    criteria as native communities. So this legislation would allow
    those villages to become full urban corporations.
        Another provision in the bill makes two fixes to 1998
    legislation that awarded land to Alaska Natives who served in
    the military during the Vietnam War. The 1998 Act was supposed
    to ensure that Alaska Native Vietnam Vets who were
    disadvantaged because they were not present in the state to
    claim their allotment of land.
        But unfortunately, that Act, the 1998 Act, left out the
    vast majority of Alaska Native vets that it was intended to
    help, effectively excluding all 300 Native veterans who lived
    in Southeastern Alaska and only including veterans who served
    during a certain three-year window, instead of any time during
    the conflict. In total, about 2,400 Alaska Natives who served
    during the Vietnam War were unable to qualify for their land.
        My bill will solve that inequity by allowing those veterans
    to gain their rightful land while also protecting all federal
    lands. This is something that the Alaska delegation has been
    working on for years now, for decades now. Secretary Zinke has
    been very favorable in his comments in our discussions. I
    appreciate that a great deal.
        I have gone into detail on a couple of the provisions that
    are in the bill, but the bill also will resolve outstanding
    land conveyances and ensure that Alaska Natives can still
    qualify for federal aid. It will allow Shishmaref to protect
    themselves from coastal erosion. It will allow Utqiagvik to
    obtain gravel from its lands as intended by the legislation
    that was enacted back in 1984.
        I have mentioned many times that this legislation is long
    overdue. It remedies, perfects, legislation that we passed 47
    years ago. We have been waiting a long time to, kind of, get
    this right, do the cleanup, if you will.
        So I would hope that my colleagues would join Senator
    Sullivan and me in supporting S. 1481 so we can finally fulfill
    the promises that Congress made to Alaska Natives all these
    years ago.
        Again, Chairman Lee, thank you for including this bill in
    the hearing.
        Gentlemen, thank you for your willingness to work with me
    and Senator Sullivan, Congressman Young, and those in the
    Department to accomplish these goals. I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. Thank you.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me
    thank both of you gentlemen for your willingness to work in
    support of Senate bill 414, the Pershing County Economic
    Development bill, and Senate bill 1046, the Eastern Nevada
    Economic Development bill.
        I look forward to continuing the dialogue. I know there are
    some concerns; Mr. Steed, you pointed to those. But let me also
    thank, while I am at it, the many supporters and devoted local
    stakeholders that contributed to this discussion on both pieces
    of legislation.
        I know there are still some technical concerns, and I think
    working together with you and the stakeholders, we can address
    these concerns.
        Mr. Steed, I just have a couple of questions.
        It is my understanding that all of the federal lands, and
    this
    is with respect to S. 414, but all of the federal lands
    identified in Title I of the Pershing County legislation which
    could be exchanged or sold under the prescriptions of our
    legislation have already been identified for disposal under the
    Winnemucca Resource Management Plan that was finalized in 2015.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Steed. They were identified for potential disposal.
    That isn't necessarily guaranteed disposal or even recommended
    disposal.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes. But it was part of the dialogue
    in the past that we have been having.
        Mr. Steed. Correct.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        And would you agree it would be helpful for land management
    purposes if the checkerboard issue was resolved?
        Mr. Steed. Absolutely. And Senator, to that point, the
    Secretary is absolutely happy to work with locals in order to
    minimize the complexities therein.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.
        Mr. Steed. I mean, I'm from a Western state. I'm from Utah.
    We've dealt with these issues in Utah for a number of years as
    well.
        However, I have to be clear. The Secretary and the
    President do not support the widescale sale or transfer of
    public lands which is what stands in the way of the outright
    transfers recommended in this bill.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        So I would like to have further discussion. I know you are
    open to that. I think there is a difference between wholesale
    transfer and wide transfer of land, but at the same time
    recognizing that 85 percent of the land in Nevada is owned by
    the Federal Government.
        Mr. Steed. Yeah.
        Senator Cortez Masto. And there has to be an opportunity
    when local communities have made a decision that is going to
    benefit them. It is going to preserve the land. It is going to
    be for economic development. It is going to benefit the
    community. There has to be dialogue between the Federal
    Government and the local communities and the state to benefit
    the state and the people that live there. Wouldn't you agree?
        Mr. Steed. Senator, I can tell you, absolutely the
    Secretary agrees and wants very much to work with you and local
    communities in resolving these longstanding disputes.
        Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        One final question. Given that the Secretary would retain
    85 percent of the proceeds of these sales of the land, is it
    not true that public recreation and conservation values would
    be better served by the Secretary utilizing these funds in a
    manner that increases recreation, conserves important
    landscapes, and protects wildlife habitats?
        Mr. Steed. On that I can't say.
        I will say the Secretary absolutely supports increased
    access for recreation opportunities on our public lands, and we
    are happy to work with you to accomplish that end.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Good. Thank you.
        I appreciate both gentlemen and look forward to continued
    dialogue with not only you but stakeholders in Nevada as well.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Steed. Thank you.
        Senator Lee. Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Gentlemen, thank you for being here.
        Mr. Steed, I understand you are an advocate, okay. I see a
    little bit of tension in your advocacy because in your written
    testimony, speaking of Lake Bistineau, you speak of a
    complicated history. And in your written testimony you say a
    continuing title conflict between the current residents of the
    United States was created in 1901 when the State of Louisiana
    mistakenly conveyed the omitted public lands to Bossier Levy
    District. But really, it wasn't mistaken in 1901, correct?
    Because it was based upon the 1842 survey, an agreement between
    the state and the Federal Government and then acting upon an
    agreement, that land was then conveyed. It is only that we say
    in 2017 that a mistake was made in 1901, but in 1901 it was
    correct, correct?
        Mr. Steed. I can't weigh into that because I don't know the
    history well enough to specify. What I can say is that in 1967,
    based on the resurvey, it was determined that this was
    mistakenly left out of the original survey.
        Senator Cassidy. Can I stop you?
        Mr. Steed. Absolutely.
        Senator Cassidy. So, then if we put up the 19--is this
    1842? Put up the 1842 survey, please.
        [The 1842 survey referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. My assistant will correct me if I am
    wrong, but in 1842 this was the land that was conveyed--in the
    green shading--to the state, based upon the 1842 survey. That
    is just a fact.
        The next one?
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. I think the complication here that you
    referred to is that based upon that, the state conveyed it to
    the Bossier Parish Levy Board. Subsequently, they made some of
    this available for public commerce and all these lots are
    homes.
        Now, here is the 1967 survey in which the Federal
    Government then conveyed or suggested it has ownership of land
    which in 1842 was given to the state.
        [The 1967 survey referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. So it is complicated. But, at some point,
    the Federal Government has to be good to its word and cannot,
    142 years later, say, oops, we have a mulligan. Because,
    obviously, we have all these people who have invested, perhaps
    life savings, in a home. Fair statement? I mean, you can speak
    as a human being, not as an attorney, if attorneys are allowed
    to speak as human beings.
        Mr. Steed. Are they? I think it's a question.
        [Laughter.]
        No, I would say, that's one of the things that makes this
    so complicated. There's a human element here and, obviously,
    there's a fair amount of inhabitants of that area now that are
    facing a fair degree of uncertainty based on the findings of
    the 1967 survey.
        And so, as I stated in the testimony and here today, I'm
    really looking forward to finding solutions here. We're not
    trying to be difficult. And Senator, I'm certainly not trying
    to quibble with you that this is a hard issue.
        Senator Cassidy. I understand.
        Believe me, I want this to be civil because I think we all
    recognize and we're looking for a solution.
        By the way, Mr. Chair, so I don't forget, I would like to
    enter for the record letters of support for this bill from the
    landowners, the Louisiana Attorney General, the Louisiana
    Landowners Association, the National Association of Royalty
    Owners, and testimony from Davis Powell, an attorney
    representing affected landowners.
        Senator Lee. Those will be admitted without objection.
        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        [The letters of support follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cassidy. And then, let me ask. I am just curious,
    in addition to, are there any other areas in the country, any
    other states, in which there are similar claims that the BLM
    has made, but not maintained a claim to land? Are there
    examples in other states besides Louisiana of omitted land
    surveys?
        Mr. Steed. There are similar cases and, Senator, I was
    hoping to be prepared to discuss those this morning. I'm happy
    to get back with you on those and discuss how they were
    resolved as well.
        Senator Cassidy. Do you know which states those are in?
        Mr. Steed. I don't, unfortunately.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay.
        And so, is it fair to say then that the question is, if BLM
    has asserted a claim we do not know whether or not the
    landowners were notified?
        Mr. Steed. I mean, I think it's a fair and open question.
        Senator Cassidy. Okay.
        And then, just for the record, I will emphasize what I said
    in my opening statement that these landowners were not notified
    in a sense that the State of Louisiana would claim, would need
    to be notified. Most landowners do not read the Federal
    Register at the dinner table to see whether or not their
    property has a claim asserted by BLM.
        Mr. Steed. I think it's a fair assertion that most
    Americans don't read the Federal Register at the dinner table.
        Senator Cassidy. Going back to whether or not attorneys are
    humans.
        Mr. Steed. Technically.
        Senator Cassidy. I know attorneys do, but I am not sure
    most humans do.
        Knowing that my Chair is an attorney, I will stop making
    jokes about attorneys and will yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Senator Lee. Most human beings are offended by the thought
    that attorneys would be in the same classification for them.
        [Laughter.]
        But as my late father used to say, it is a shame when you
    disparage an entire profession on the basis of only 800,000 or
    900,000 bad apples.
        [Laughter.]
        We will go to the next non-attorney in the room, Senator
    Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Casamassa, I understand the Forest Service supports
    Senate bill 2206, the Protect Public Use of Public Lands Act,
    as these WSAs that are proposed for release are not recommended
    for wilderness. Can you confirm that?
        Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator.
        They have been studied and that the recommendation was
    through our work that they would be released or that they would
    not be considered.
        Senator Daines. Was there public input in that process?
        Mr. Casamassa. Yes, there was, in terms of when that was
    done there was solicitation of public input as part of the
    process.
        Senator Daines. And what kind of public process would that
    typically be?
        Mr. Casamassa. It would be through scoping of a proposed
    action as it relates to the National Environmental Policy Act
    process to, in order for us to analyze and disclose impacts,
    that's one of the things that's just part of what we do.
        Senator Daines. Some folks say and think that by removing a
    wilderness study area designation, we are removing all
    protections for the land and its resources.
        Could you explain what safeguards remain in place for
    public land management and how these lands would be governed
    moving forward after a WSA designation is removed?
        Mr. Casamassa. Senator, right now, if in fact this would be
    enacted into law, then the wilderness study areas that would be
    released, all of these areas are presently under the guise of
    the 2001 inventoried roadless area and that's how they would be
    governed with some prohibitions associated with any kinds of
    road building and limitations on the kinds of activities that
    could occur within the inventoried roadless area.
        Senator Daines. I am glad you mentioned the roadless rule.
        If you were to hear some of the letters to the editor and
    the other things going on back home, you would think that the
    roadless rule would allow extensive timber cutting, some even
    saying large-scale mining could occur.
        It is surprising to me, as many of our wood products groups
    have told me that these lands are not the most economical
    largely due to the roadless rule.
        My question is, is it true that these lands could be
    logged, even with a roadless rule in place?
        Mr. Casamassa. There's certain prohibitions on road
    building and there is some level of forest management that
    could occur with respect to improving habitats for endangered
    species and perhaps to improve the ecosystem composition and
    structure. But there are limitations on what kinds of forest
    management can occur within the inventoried roadless areas.
        Senator Daines. What about mining?
        Mr. Casamassa. Based on the--there could be access that
    could be provided to leases that were issued prior to the
    roadless rule becoming a rule. So there is--and that's in 2001,
    so leases that were there prior to could be accessed and then
    potentially used. But there's very--there are limitations on
    any kind of mining activities as well.
        Senator Daines. Right.
        And I understand part of the 2001 roadless rule, when that
    was put in place, was due to the fact there was very minimal
    mineral potential in these WSAs.
        Mr. Casamassa. Generally speaking, across the country, the
    inventoried roadless areas have a limited potential for any
    kind of extraction, yes.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        I know Montanans are interested in forming future use of
    these lands. Are there existing processes in place to update
    travel and forest plans?
        Mr. Casamassa. And you know, Senator, and Senator Tester
    did state that, is that there are a number of collaboratives
    that are working diligently, place-based collaboratives across
    the State of Montana, that are working on forest plan
    revisions, travel management plans and coming together and
    working through solutions to some complex issues on the
    National Forest System lands.
        So, yes, there are processes in place and people are
    working right now through the forest plan----
        Senator Daines. And those are public processes?
        Mr. Casamassa. Absolutely.
        Senator Daines. Grassroots, bottom-up kind of public
    processes?
        Mr. Casamassa. Yes.
        Senator Daines. And what does a WSA release mean for
    flexibility in land planning and increasing more public
    recreation?
        Mr. Casamassa. I think one of the things that it does is it
    provides for a shift in, potentially, what we could look at
    with respect to some outdoor experiences that now could be
    provided on the WSAs.
        Senator Daines. Okay.
        And just in the remaining time, I want to talk about the
    Blackfoot Clearwater. One of the biggest reasons the local
    snowmobile clubs and mountain bike clubs support this bill is
    the designated recreation areas. Now they have done a great job
    over the last decade or so in a collaborative.
        Could you expand on the Forest Service's concerns with
    those designations?
        Mr. Casamassa. One of the things we'd like to take a look
    at and work with the collaboratives locally, as well as Senator
    Tester and this Committee, is that we want to know the extent
    of some of the proposals for what kinds of development would
    occur with respect to that trail system. And part of the
    concern that I have with it is that we take a longer view. We
    recognize that the outdoor industry is growing and expanding in
    a larger part of the economic drivers within each and every one
    of the states. And that not only do we want to lay out a very
    sustainable trail system throughout some of these areas, but we
    also want to take into consideration what kinds of ancillary
    improvements that are needed, such as trailheads, restroom
    facilities, signage and the like, as part of how we want to
    invest in these, in this infrastructure in the long-term.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Casamassa.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. Senator Flake.
        Senator Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you
    holding this hearing.
        I introduced S. 2062, the Oracle Cabins Conveyance Act. It
    corrects an unfortunate situation that you mentioned, Mr.
    Casamassa.
        The couples here purchased cabins on the edge of the
    National Forest through a program that allowed recreational
    cabins on forest lands. Then the Forest Service reclassified
    the homes without notifying the owners. Obviously, it makes it
    difficult for the owners to sell the cabins and, ultimately,
    will force them to demolish or to physically relocate their
    retirement homes.
        I would like to submit for the record a statement from Mr.
    Dale Ortman, owner of one of the cabins.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        [Dale Ortman's written statement follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Flake. It is clear that these families would not
    have invested their nest eggs in homes on federal land if they
    had known that policy changes would wipe out their investment.
    I think that is recognized by the Forest Service.
        In a recent letter to the Forest Service, I suggested
    multiple ways the Forest Service could help the owners keep
    their homes using existing authority. I understand from your
    statement earlier that you are looking at that, and I hope you
    will continue to pursue those options. Do we have your
    commitment to do that?
        Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator.
        You know, we do recognize that it's a difficult situation.
    We want to provide assurity to the residents that, you know,
    like you had stated, that their nest egg would be protected and
    they could have some understanding and consideration for
    acquiring those lands.
        And we think, based on the communications we've had with
    you, that some of the existing authorities do provide us with
    an opportunity to resolve this issue.
        Senator Flake. Good, thank you. I will be following it
    closely; I appreciate it.
        I also introduced S. 612, the Udall Park Land Exchange
    Completion Act, to address another long-standing land issue in
    Arizona. The City of Tucson acquired Udall Park about 30 years
    ago through an equal value land exchange with BLM.
    Unfortunately, the exchange was never fully completed and
    significant restrictions remain on Tucson's title to the park.
        In recognition of the City's transfer of a $4 million
    partial to the BLM in 1989, S. 612 would finally allow the City
    of Tucson to use and develop the land as it originally
    intended.
        I would like to submit a statement in support of the
    legislation from the City of Tucson.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        [City of Tucson letter and statement of support follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Flake. Also, thank you for including S. 1222 at
    this hearing as well. This bill would convey a small portion of
    federal land to La Paz County which only has about five percent
    private ownership. That is an extremely low amount, even by
    Arizona standards. The land, conveniently situated between
    large markets of Phoenix and Southern California, would provide
    the county an important opportunity to do responsible energy
    development.
        I would also like to submit for the record, a statement in
    support of the bill from D.L. Wilson, Chairman of the Board of
    Supervisors at the La Paz County.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        [The prepared statement of support from D.L. Wilson
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Flake. Mr. Steed, I have certainly always advocated
    for fiscally responsible management of federal assets, but I
    agree with the City of Tucson and the Ranking Democratic Member
    of the House Resources Committee that making the City pay twice
    for the land is a bit absurd. What are your thoughts?
        Mr. Steed. Senator, I appreciate the question and, as you
    know, it's a complicated issue there.
        When the City took control of Udall Park they did so under
    the R&PP Act. As such, the Federal Government held a
    reversionary interest in that. Now, the City of Tucson is
    wanting to do more economic activity on that, specifically, a
    cell tower, to which they would need to buy that reversionary
    interest back.
        I also understand there was a separate gift from the City
    of Freeman Road to the BLM. Unfortunately, the rules that
    govern us on FLPMA and others would require an appraisal on
    that parcel of land as well as that to be stated.
        And so, Senator, not to quibble again with the City of
    Tucson or you, we welcome a legislative fix. We're just trying
    to confine ourselves to the law that we've been given.
        Senator Flake. Okay. Well, thank you.
        Hopefully this will be the fix.
        With regard to the La Paz County Land Conveyance Act, if
    passed, Mr. Steed, would La Paz County pay fair market price
    for the land in question?
        Mr. Steed. I'm sorry, what was the question again?
        Senator Flake. With regard to the Land Conveyance Act, the
    La Paz County Land Conveyance Act, if it passes will La Paz
    County be required to pay fair market value?
        Mr. Steed. Again, this goes through the R&PP Act, as
    currently established, which would mean there's a reversionary
    interest and they would have to pay the reversionary interest
    back.
        Senator Flake. Right.
        Mr. Steed. And again, sir, that goes to the assumption that
    this is within the realm of what the R&PP Act was established
    to do.
        Senator Flake. And does the bill that we introduced affect
    BLM's requirement to follow all NEPA rules and regulations?
    Those are still there, right?
        Mr. Steed. That's correct.
        Senator Flake. Okay.
        Does BLM commit to working with La Paz County to facilitate
    the responsible reversal of federal lands here?
        Mr. Steed. Absolutely.
        As stated in my testimony, we support the underlying goals.
    The mechanism, we may have a problem with, but we're absolutely
    happy to work with you and other interested parties to make
    sure we can get it done.
        Senator Flake. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. As we are talking about reversionary
    interests, I started experiencing shell shock from a time
    during law school when all law students have to learn these
    things called future interests which include awful terms like
    fee simple determinable subject to a springing executory
    interest and you have to tell the difference between that and a
    fee tail, a fee simple absolute and so forth.
        Senator Heinrich. You wonder why attorneys have issues with
    the public.
        Senator Lee. Yes, yes, exactly. Well, it is because of the
    PTSD we experience in the wake of that.
        The reversionary interest here, when you talk about
    establishing the fair market value of the reversionary
    interest, can you just walk us through it, Mr. Steed? Tell us
    how one goes about, within the BLM, assessing what might be the
    fair market value for reversionary interest?
        Mr. Steed. It's an interesting and complicated question,
    Senator. I have to admit that I wasn't hoping to get into a
    legal discussion with you today.
        Short answer is, these go through the Office of Evaluation
    Services to determine what the value is of those reverters and
    that's what we're trying to accomplish here.
        Senator Lee. Okay, but they have established protocols in
    place that look at the present and future potential value of
    the land and the likelihood of the reversionary interest
    springing whenever it is going to come up?
        Mr. Steed. Correct.
        Senator Lee. And I assume the BLM considered, in this
    context, other payments made to BLM by the City of Tucson when
    considering the need to make a fair market value payment?
        Mr. Steed. Once again, Senator, it's a complicated legal
    question. Part of it goes to timing of when those transactions
    occurred. The gift happened before the R&PP occurred which
    creates some legal uncertainty as to whether that was actually
    a payment for. I've been advised by solicitors that it did not
    satisfy the legal requirements. That's where we stand.
        Senator Lee. Okay, I appreciate that.
        As I look across the panel today I will note that it is
    significant that all of us who are here now, virtually all of
    us who have been here at all today, are from one part of the
    country. We are from the Western United States.
        It is noteworthy that in every state east of Colorado the
    Federal Government owns less than 15 percent of the land. In
    every state from Colorado and west, thereof, the Federal
    Government owns much more than that, often a lot more than
    that.
        Senator Cortez Masto's state has the record with the
    Federal Government owning, basically, nine out of ten acres in
    her state. In my state, it is about two-thirds of the land, but
    in New Mexico, in Montana, in basically every Western state,
    the Federal Government is not just the largest landowner, but
    the largest landowner by far. There are special challenges that
    come with that.
        I think everyone enjoys visiting things like national
    parks. I don't think you hear anyone, in any of our states,
    complaining about public land from the standpoint of a national
    park, but there are lots of other kinds of federal land that
    are neither national park nor military installation where the
    Federal Government is in charge. That land cannot be taxed by
    the local taxing authority, normally it would be a county. The
    Federal Government pays something under a program called
    Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT as it is commonly known. In
    most counties in Utah, counties receive pennies on the dollar
    compared to what they would receive if they could tax that
    land, even at the very lowest rate for the land in question.
    These are lands that are, nonetheless, under the responsibility
    of those counties which have to provide for search and rescue
    operations, police services, firefighting operations and so
    forth, even though they are not receiving any taxable value for
    that land.
        There are schools that have to be built and operated. There
    are city officials who have to be paid. And very often, a
    significant part of an operating budget for a county comes
    through property taxes.
        In addition to this, it is not just that they receive less
    in terms of property tax revenue, there are often economically
    challenging aspects of living in a public land state, or in a
    public land county, where there are a whole lot of things that
    would not require anywhere near the kind of government
    permitting that one has to go through when utilizing public
    land.
        So that is one of the reasons why it is important that when
    we hold hearings like this, when we introduce legislation like
    many of the bills that we have been covering today, that you
    come here and that you are willing to listen to us and take
    into account that those we represent are often living at the
    mercy of local land managers.
        Do I have your commitment that you will be willing to do
    that?
        Mr. Steed. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Mr. Casamassa?
        Mr. Casamassa. Oh, absolutely, Senator, yes.
        Senator Lee. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Senator Heinrich. Can I add a closing thought?
        Senator Lee. Yes, please.
        Senator Heinrich. I just want to, sort of, fill in a little
    bit more perspective in terms of what the Chair was bringing up
    about public lands.
        It is true that those of us here are all from the West and
    from public land states. I would not live anywhere but the West
    and the reason why I live in the West is because of those
    public lands.
        As a former outfitter guide--in my state they generate
    almost $10 billion in economic activity, nearly 100,000 jobs--I
    have seen firsthand what it means to be a guide in a small town
    in rural frontier New Mexico spending money on services and
    food and gas and all the other things that go into that. I see
    the income that gets pumped into small rural communities in the
    middle of hunting season. I think we need to paint that picture
    with both sides of the ledger to truly understand these issues.
        And I appreciate the work that our agencies do. We can
    always do it better. I have had to fill out a bunch of those
    permits, so I know we can do it better.
        But we should have an honest and very balanced conversation
    about just what an incredible thing it is that our American
    citizens have these incredible public lands which, by the way,
    I do not think the government owns--I think the government
    manages on behalf of all of us and our constituents.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Heinrich, very well said. I
    think all of us who live in the West share an enthusiasm for
    the beauty that is found in our land and are grateful for the
    recreational and other opportunities that we have on those
    lands.
        If there are no additional questions today, we will keep
    the record open for an additional two weeks so that members can
    submit questions in writing should they choose to do so.
        I want to thank the witnesses for coming and answering our
    questions today.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]