[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]