[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]