    [Senate Hearing 116-323]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 116-323

                              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 SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

    S. 242                               S. 499
    S. 258                               S. 526
    S. 434                               S. 1079
    S. 490                               S. 1262

                                   __________

                                  MAY 14, 2019

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC 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
    37-306                      WASHINGTON : 2021

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi        MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
                                     ------

               Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                               MIKE LEE, Chairman

    JOHN BARRASSO                        RON WYDEN
    JAMES E. RISCH                       MARIA CANTWELL
    STEVE DAINES                         DEBBIE STABENOW
    BILL CASSIDY                         MARTIN HEINRICH
    CORY GARDNER                         MAZIE K. HIRONO
    CINDY HYDE-SMITH                     ANGUS S. KING, JR.
    MARTHA McSALLY                       CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
    JOHN HOEVEN

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                         Kellie Donnelly, Chief Counsel
                       Lucy Murfitt, Deputy Chief Counsel
                    Nick Matiella, Professional Staff Member
                    Sarah Venuto, 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
    Wyden, Hon. Ron, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator
      from Oregon....................................................     8
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............    12
    McSally, Hon. Martha, a U.S. Senator from Arizona................    13
    Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, a U.S. Senator from Nevada.........    21
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      West Virginia..................................................    48

                                   WITNESSES

    Udall, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico..................     3
    Braun, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Indiana....................    49
    Beum, Frank R., Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
      System, USDA Forest Service....................................    51
    Nedd, Michael, Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land
      Management, U.S. Department of the Interior....................    56

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   102
    American Forest Resource Council:
        Letter for the Record dated May 22, 2019, regarding S. 1262..   104
        Letter for the Record dated November 15, 2018................   108
    American Rivers:
        Letter for the Record........................................   112
    American Wind Energy Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   114
    Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Nevada Chapter:
        Letter for the Record........................................    24
    Baertschiger, Jr., Hon. Herman:
        Letter for the Record........................................   116
    Baertschiger, Jr., Hon. Herman and Hon. Betsy Johnson:
        Letter for the Record........................................   118
    Berkman, Budd:
        Comment for the Record.......................................   120
    Beum, Frank R.:
        Opening Statement............................................    51
        Written Testimony............................................    53
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    94
    Blair, William J. ``Bill'':
        Letter for the Record........................................   121
    Boice, Hon. Court:
        Opinion in The Register-Guard--Eugene, Oregon, dated January
          20, 2019, entitled ``Boice: Oregon Wildlands Act won't
          protect the Rogue''........................................   122
    Brady, Stephen and Patricia:
        Letter for the Record........................................   124
    Braun, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................    49
        Written Testimony............................................    50
    Bruch, Hon. Katherine A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   125
    Campbell, Mariel:
        Letter for the Record........................................   127
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   128
    Cavanaugh-Bill Law Offices:
        Letter for the Record........................................    32
    Center for Biological Diversity:
        Letter for the Record........................................    34
    Chewning, Stephen and Joan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   130
    Clifton, Martin A.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   131
    Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife:
        Letter for the Record........................................    35
    Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
        Opening Statement............................................    21
    Daines, Hon. Steve:
        Photo of B-47 Ridge (Crash Site) on Emigrant Peak (Montana)..    75
        Photos of Servicemen and Debris from the Crash Site..........    76
    Driscoll, Hon. Jim:
        Letter for the Record........................................    20
    Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association, Inc.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   136
    Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association and the Las Placitas
      Association of New Mexico:
        Letter for the Record........................................   137
    Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona:
        Letter for the Record........................................    18
    Elko Band Council, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of
      Nevada:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    37
    Evans, Hon. Coral J.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    14
    Faulconer Fair, Myrna:
        Letter for the Record........................................    78
    FreedomWorks:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   174
    Friends of the Kalmiopsis:
        Letter for the Record........................................   175
    Friends of Nevada Wilderness:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    29
    Gale, Robert N. ``Bob'':
        Letter for the Record........................................   182
    Gilbert, Wm. Dean:
        Letter for the Record........................................    79
    Gonzalez-Colon, Hon. Jennifer:
        Letter for the Record........................................   183
    Goodrich, Barbara:
        Letter for the Record........................................    15
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
        Opening Statement............................................    12
    Hicks, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   185
    Hixenbaugh, Frederick:
        Letter for the Record........................................    80
    Hixenbaugh Beasley, Nancy:
        Letter for the Record........................................    81
    Joiner, Keith:
        Letter for the Record........................................    82
    Kalmiopsis Audubon Society:
        Letter for the Record........................................   187
    KS Wild, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   237
    Lee, Hon. Mike:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Leif, Hon. Gary:
        Letter for the Record........................................   242
    Lyford, Gordon:
        Letter for the Record........................................   243
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................    48
    Martin, Rhon and Margene:
        Letter for the Record........................................   244
    McSally, Hon. Martha:
        Opening Statement............................................    13
    National Ocean Industries Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   245
    National Trust for Historic Preservation:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   246
    National Wildlife Federation and New Mexico Wildlife Federation:
        Letter for the Record........................................   248
    Nedd, Michael:
        Opening Statement............................................    56
        Written Testimony............................................    60
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    95
    Nevada Conservation League:
        Letter for the Record........................................    25
    Northern Arizona Leadership Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................    19
    Ordogne, Paul and Carol:
        Letter for the Record........................................   250
    Oregon Outdoors:
        Letter for the Record........................................   251
    Oregon Wild:
        Letter for the Record........................................   253
    Outdoor Alliance:
        Letter for the Record........................................   255
    Palmer, Tim:
        Letter for the Record........................................   259
    Park County (Montana) Commission:
        Letter for the Record........................................    83
    Park County (Montana) Environmental Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................    84
    Parker, Col. Brandon D., USAF:
        Letter for the Record........................................    85
    Patagonia:
        Letter for the Record........................................    28
    Perkins, Joanne and Tim:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   261
    Perkins, Tim:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   262
    Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada:
        Letter for the Record........................................    39
    Puckett, James E.:
        Letter for the Record........................................   263
    Pueblo of Santa Ana (New Mexico):
        Statement for the Record.....................................   266
    Redfield, Hon. Alan:
        Letter for the Record........................................    86
    Rice, Hon. John Patrick:
        Statement for the Record.....................................    40
    Roberts, Hon. Colleen, Hon. Court Boice and Hon. Lily Morgan:
        Letter for the Record........................................   268
    Sawyers Wilcoxen, Sharon:
        Letter for the Record........................................    87
    Sierra Club:
        Letter for the Record........................................   270
    Sierra Club--Toiyabe Chapter:
        Letter for the Record........................................    27
    South Fork Indian Reservation, South Fork Band Council:
        Resolution No. 19-SF-08 for the Record.......................    41
    Sportsmen for the Rubies:
        Letter for the Record........................................    30
    STEM City (Arizona):
        Letter for the Record........................................    17
    Stevens, Fermina:
        Letter for the Record........................................    43
    Sutton, Dr. Greg K.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    88
    Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone:
        Resolution No. 19-TM-01 for the Record.......................    22
    Udall, Hon. Tom:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
        Written Testimony............................................     5
    U.S. Department of the Interior:
        Statement for the Record regarding S. 499....................    58
    Western Watersheds Project:
        Letter for the Record........................................    44
    (The) Wilderness Society:
        Letter for the Record dated May 10, 2019, regarding S. 258...    26
        Letter for the Record dated May 13, 2019, regarding various
          bills......................................................   272
        Letter for the Record dated May 14, 2019, regarding S. 1317..   277
    Wilhelmsen, John:
        Letter for the Record........................................   279
    Wyden, Hon. Ron:
        Opening Statement............................................     8
        Written Statement............................................    10

    ----------
    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/
    hearings/2019/5/subcommittee-on-public-lands-forests-and-mining-
    legislative-hearing

                              PENDING LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 14, 2019

                                   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 2:46 p.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. The Subcommittee will come to order. The
    Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining is now
    holding its first legislative hearing for the 116th Congress,
    and I would like to welcome all of you.
        As my colleagues know, the Subcommittee has jurisdiction
    over public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management
    and the U.S. Forest Service. This includes oversight of
    activities on such lands including recreation, hard rock
    mining, mineral leasing, the establishment of wilderness areas
    and mineral policy in the Outer Continental Shelf.
        Today's hearing agenda includes eight bills that together
    cover each of these issues in several Western states and
    offshore of all five U.S. territories. It is an example of the
    Subcommittee's broad oversight over large swaths of federal
    land and is a reminder of the fact that public lands policy has
    a direct impact on the daily lives of many, many millions of
    Americans.
        Indeed, the Federal Government controls almost one-third of
    the entire land mass of the United States making it, far and
    away, the largest landowner in the nation and over 90 percent
    of its holdings are located in 11 states in the West. In
    contrast, the Federal Government owns 4 percent of the land
    East of the Mississippi.
        My home State of Utah is ranked second among all states for
    the percentage of land owned and managed by the Federal
    Government. In fact, two-thirds of Utah is the property of
    Uncle Sam and the estate, the federal estate, within the
    country is growing. Over the past five years, Congress has
    appropriated more than $1 billion for land acquisition, this,
    in addition to the land already held by the Federal Government.
        The most recent data produced by the Congressional Research
    Service (CRS) estimates that the Federal Government owns more
    than 640 million acres with a maintenance backlog of $19
    billion, with a B--though the CRS notes that these estimates
    are incomplete. So that is one of the issues you run into when
    you have a single entity owning this much land, you have to
    rely on estimates about how large the estate is and even those
    estimates are known and conceded to be incomplete.
        Today I would like to highlight a bill sponsored by my
    colleague from Indiana, Senator Braun, S. 434, that responds to
    this very issue. S. 434 directs the U.S. Department of the
    Interior to produce and submit a report to Congress on its land
    holdings and on the cost of maintaining such lands. I believe
    S. 434 will help ensure that Congress and the American
    taxpayers will have a better understanding of the land that is
    owned by the Federal Government, and I look forward to
    discussing that bill today.
        We will also hear testimony from the Administration on
    three bills, that combined, would withdraw more than 700,000
    acres of federal land from mineral development in Nevada and
    New Mexico.
        Another bill, S. 1262, the Oregon Recreation Enhancement
    Act, would establish approximately 59,000 acres of new
    wilderness and designate another 130,000 acres as special
    management areas for recreation on O&C lands, lands originally
    set aside for timber production through federal grants.
        Only two bills on today's agenda would remove federal
    restrictions on public land for the benefit of local
    communities. The first, S. 242, would remove outdated Forest
    Service timber interest on 640 acres of land in Arizona to
    support public enjoyment of a historical observatory. The other
    bill, S. 490, sponsored by my colleague, Senator Daines,
    authorizes local residents to install a memorial plaque on a
    mountain ridge in Montana to honor the death of four servicemen
    who perished there in an Air Force bomber crash.
        I would also like to highlight this bill which represents
    life in a public land state. A community needs to go cap in
    hand to Congress to ask Congress for permission to simply have
    a plaque to honor servicemen who died there while serving their
    country. This is the burden of having the Federal Government
    own a large portion of your state. This is the burden specific
    to a state where most of the land is owned by the Federal
    Government. This should not be the case. This is silly. And it
    ought not require an Act of Congress to do something like that,
    but we will do it if that is what it takes. It is an insult to
    the American people, particularly those servicemen and women
    and particularly to the residents of states like that that we
    have to go through this exercise.
        Both S. 242 and S. 490 highlight that public lands must be
    made more accessible for local uses, recognizing that there are
    a whole lot of people close to where those lands are that are
    more affected by how those lands are used, how they are
    managed, than the people here in Washington, DC, who dictate
    how they will be used.
        With that, I would be turning to Senator Wyden for his
    opening remarks. It looks like he is not here yet. We are also
    going to give a chance to members of the Subcommittee to make
    introductory remarks. While we await Senator Wyden, we are
    going to hear from Senator Udall and later from Senator Braun.
        Senator Udall has another committee assignment so with
    consent of the Committee members, I would like to go to Senator
    Udall first. And I am not just doing that because he is my
    cousin, but also because I really like him.
        [Laughter.]
        Go ahead, Senator Udall.

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

        Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Ranking Member
    Wyden and all of the members, thank you for your courtesies.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of the
    Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act and the Buffalo
    Tract Protection Act, both introduced by me and Senator
    Heinrich.
        The Chaco Protection Act would withdraw federal lands from
    future minerals development within an approximately ten-mile
    radius of the boundaries of Chaco Cultural National Historic
    Park in New Mexico. The entire New Mexico delegation supports
    this legislation, with a companion bill introduced in the House
    of Representatives by our three House members, Representatives
    Lujan, Haaland and Torres Small.
        Let me first briefly explain why the Chaco Canyon area is
    so special. Chaco is known around the world as the heart of a
    culture that inhabited the Four Corners area for hundreds of
    years. The Chacoan people reached astounding architectural,
    cultural and economic heights for 300 years from 850 to 1150
    AD. They were master builders and engineers constructing over
    150 great houses with hundreds of rooms and kivas throughout
    the region. A network of roads spread in all directions and
    trade relations extended into Southern Mexico. More than 3,500
    archaeological sites have yielded over 1.5 million artifacts.
    The remains of sites stand today, and they are magnificent.
        The starkly beautiful land and mountains within the area
    and the cultural sites and artifacts that pepper the landscape
    are sacred to many pueblos and tribes in the Four Corners area.
    These tribal nations' deep roots to the Chacoan people live on
    in their communities across the Southwest, and we have several
    Pueblo governors here representing all of the pueblos in New
    Mexico.
        Chaco has been a UNESCO world heritage site since 1987, one
    of only 23 such sites in our nation. This culture represents
    one of our nation's greatest pre-Columbian civilizations.
        But the park covers only a fraction of the archaeological
    and culturally significant sites and artifacts. Protection of
    the area surrounding the national park is imperative. This area
    is at real and continued risk.
        Over the last three years, the Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM) has proposed new oil and gas leasing in the Greater Chaco
    Canyon landscape area. Each time, BLM has withdrawn the
    proposals as a result of overwhelming protests from the public
    and pressure from elected officials like Senator Heinrich and
    me. This sacred area, home to critically important
    archaeological sites and objects, should not be under constant
    threat. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit recently concluded that the
    Department had not adequately evaluated impacts from leases
    both within and outside this ten-mile buffer. The time to act
    is now.
        Our bill grew from a ground swell of community-based work
    over a number of years. Residents and tribal and surrounding
    communities sought greater input into BLM decisions on
    development in and around the area, and pueblos and tribes
    wanted the meaningful government-to-government consultation the
    Federal Government is obligated to conduct.
        We have worked very closely with the all-Pueblo Council of
    Governors, the Navajo Nation, community members and others to
    craft a bill that balances cultural protection and existing
    rights, including those of tribal allottees. This legislation
    would withdraw only minerals owned by the Federal Government
    within approximately 333,000 acres.
        I also want to be clear, this bill would not affect
    existing federal leases or minerals owned by private
    individuals, the State of New Mexico, or tribes.
        Importantly, the New Mexico State Land Office Commissioner
    has issued an Executive Order placing a moratorium on new
    mineral development on approximately 72,000 acres of state
    trust lands within an approximately ten-mile radius of the
    National Park. The State of New Mexico has aligned with our
    legislation. Other private parties and tribes will be able to
    make those decisions for themselves. This bill is important to
    my state, our pueblos and tribes, our nation and to future
    generations.
        I look forward to the Subcommittee moving this bill out of
    the Committee as quickly as possible so we protect this special
    area for generations to come.
        I also fully support the Buffalo Tract Protection Act, S.
    1526, and hope it can also be reported favorably, as quickly as
    possible. This legislation would withdraw four parcels of BLM
    lands, including the Buffalo Tract and the Crest of Montezuma,
    from mineral development.
        This bill would also maintain BLM's authority over the
    surface rights to the parcels. And if the surface rights are
    transferred and the mineral rights will remain under federal
    management and will remain withdrawn.
        Like our Chaco legislation, this bill is supported by an
    array of community members and tribes including the Town of
    Bernalillo, Santa Ana Pueblo, San Felipe Pueblo, Las Placitas
    Association, Ranchos de Placitas Property Owners Association
    and La Mesa Homeowners Association.
        Thank you very much for considering my views. Sorry,
    Ranking Member Wyden, for jumping in front of you here, but I
    am going to end.
        I thank all the Committee members for their courtesies and
    excuse myself to meet with my Chairman, Senator Murkowski, who
    is probably mad at me at this point.
        [Senator Udall's written statement follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. I am sure she will be very understanding, and
    you did a great job serving as the warm-up band for Senator
    Wyden.
        Senator Wyden.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Chairman Lee and Senator Manchin,
    in particular, and all of my colleagues. This is a pretty
    hectic day by Senate standards.
        I appreciate the chance to discuss legislation that Senator
    Merkley and I have authored to protect and enhance three of my
    state's most iconic recreation destinations.
        S. 1262, the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act would
    establish two new recreation areas on the Rogue and Molalla
    Rivers. These rivers are home to some of the world's most
    extraordinary salmon and steelhead runs which are the backbone
    of Oregon's local recreation economies.
        This legislation would expand the current Wild Rogue
    Wilderness Area in the rugged canyons and steep cliffs off the
    Rogue River. This is truly one of the wildest and most remote
    landscapes in Southern Oregon with efforts to protect and
    conserve these lands persisting for over a half century when
    Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and designated
    44.5 miles of the Rogue.
        Lastly, the bill permanently protects several sources of
    clean drinking water from hazardous mining. The special
    headwaters for the Smith and Illinois Rivers provide thousands
    of Oregon families with clean drinking water and are critical
    salmon habitats.
        Based on the support of the local community, the Forest
    Service and Bureau of Land Management issued a temporary 20-
    year ban on new mining claims in the region in 2017. The
    temporary ban gives Congress more time to pursue a permanent
    solution. That is what this bill does. And the legislation
    builds on what I call the Oregon way, our traditional
    conservation ethic that has been fundamental to the livability
    of my home state. The areas the legislation seeks to protect
    are truly public treasures and should remain places to recreate
    for generations to come.
        That is why, based on local concerns, this bill ensures
    that public land managers can do important preemptive forest
    health and wildfire resiliency work within the recreation areas
    and wilderness expansion. Making sure these landscapes are
    around for future generations means hazardous fuels and
    thinning work can and must continue.
        I have heard all these stories about how you can't protect
    special places in the West because all you are doing is getting
    short shrift to the effort to deal with fire. Nothing could be
    further from the truth. This Committee led the effort on
    trailblazing approaches like ending fire borrowing and the list
    goes on and on. But what this legislation does is it protects
    special places and also makes it clear that we are going to be
    all in in the fight against fire; thinning work and hazardous
    fuels work can continue.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the chance to be able
    to jump in front of some of my colleagues. I want to thank you
    and Senator Manchin and my colleagues for their courtesy.
    Something tells me Senator Heinrich and I are going to end up
    in the same place here shortly. I appreciate my colleagues and
    ask that my full statement be part of the record.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        [Senator Wyden's full statement follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. We will now recognize the Ranking Member of
    the full Committee, Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. I yield my time to Senator Heinrich,
    because I know he has to go to another meeting.

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

        Senator Heinrich. Thank you very much. We have a markup in
    the Intel Committee meeting, so that is why some of us will be
    coming and going.
        But I want to thank the Subcommittee for hearing two bills
    today on issues of incredible importance to New Mexico, and I
    want to thank Senator Udall for his leadership and partnership
    on these two bills.
        First, the Chaco Culture Heritage Area Protection Act would
    protect the area immediately surrounding the Chaco Culture
    National Historic Park from federal development of oil and
    natural gas. This landscape is sacred to tribes across the
    Southwest and tribal leaders are united in their opposition to
    new development within ten miles of the park. And New Mexico's
    governor, state land commissioner and the entire Congressional
    delegation agree that this is the wrong place for oil and gas
    production.
        As development in the San Juan Basin moves further and
    further south, the air pollution, dust and light pollution at
    the sacred sites inside the park will only increase. And
    fragile historical and cultural sites outside of the park
    boundaries are directly threatened by new wells drilled without
    the benefit of a cultural resource survey based on the
    traditional knowledge of Pueblo and Navajo experts.
        We cannot rush into development in a place this culturally
    important and this complex. Preventing development in the
    immediate surroundings of the park will protect irreplaceable
    cultural sites and ensure that the Greater Chaco landscape
    remains intact.
        Mr. Nedd, in your testimony you state that it would be
    premature for the Department of the Interior to take a position
    on permanent protection for this area before you complete the
    planning process. If that is the case, I also hope that the BLM
    takes the same approach to development decisions that would
    have a permanent impact on this landscape. If protection is
    premature at this time, then surely development is also
    premature. I hope that the BLM's plan will give this
    landscape's irreplaceable cultural resources the protection
    that they truly deserve.
        Secondly, the Buffalo Tract Protection Act would withdraw
    four small parcels of BLM land just north of Albuquerque for
    mineral development. This area is already home to three gravel
    mines which have negatively impacted the air and water quality
    of the area. These BLM parcels act as a critical connection for
    wildlife moving between the Sandia Mountains to the south and
    the Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the north. These parcels also
    provide invaluable recreational open space in a growing area.
        The two neighboring pueblos, the county, the nearest town,
    neighborhood associations and local residents all agree that
    these parcels are not the right place for yet another gravel
    mine.
        As demonstrated by the BLM's testimony today, they are
    determined to sell the gravel resource here over the objection
    of local stakeholders. A legislative withdrawal will
    permanently protect the wildlife habitat and recreation
    resources for this community.
        Thank you, again, to the Subcommittee and I yield back the
    remainder of my time, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Lee. Senator McSally.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARTHA MCSALLY,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

        Senator McSally. Thank you, Chairman Lee, Ranking Member
    Wyden for holding this hearing today on my bill, S. 242, the
    Lowell Observatory Conveyance Act.
        This is a very simple bill that will allow the Observatory
    to make the infrastructure improvements necessary to update its
    research capacity, enhance educational opportunities and
    address important public safety concerns.
        The Lowell Observatory is a world-class research and
    educational observatory founded in 1894 in Flagstaff, Arizona.
    The Observatory has earned global recognition for its
    significant astronomical discoveries and accomplishments,
    including the discovery of Pluto, mapping the moon for the
    Apollo program and the first detection of the expanding nature
    of the universe.
        In 1910, Congress granted Lowell Observatory ownership of
    the plot of land it sits on. The legislation maintained
    reversionary interest on the land that stated the property
    would revert back to the Federal Government if the observatory
    ceased operations as well as the right to cut merchantable
    timber from the plot. That is a new word I have never used
    before in a sentence.
        These conditions made sense in 1910 when the Observatory
    was young. Flagstaff was a frontier timber town, and the land
    it sat on was in the middle of the Coconino National Forest.
    However, conditions today are vastly different. The Lowell
    Observatory is well established with more than a century of
    globally recognized research and discovery under its belt. The
    property is now nearly encircled by the City of Flagstaff.
        My simple, straight-forward and bipartisan bill with
    Senator Sinema will remove the technical encumbrances so that
    the Observatory can make the infrastructure improvements needed
    for another 100 years of scientific discovery, education and
    community enrichment. I am pleased to see strong community
    support for my legislation and a future for the Lowell
    Observatory.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
    enter into the record these six letters of support from
    community leaders and organizations.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        Senator McSally. This includes Flagstaff Mayor Coral Evans,
    Flagstaff City Manager Barbara Goodrich, STEM City Flagstaff,
    the Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona, Northern
    Arizona Leadership Alliance and the Coconino County Sheriff's
    Office.
        [Letters of support for the Lowell Observatory Conveyance
    Act follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator McSally. I want to say thanks again for holding
    this hearing, and I hope we can move this bill forward.
        I yield back.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator McSally.
        Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. I am going to defer my time to my friend,
    Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Lee. Senator Cortez Masto.

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

        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        I would like to thank the Chairman and our Ranking Member
    for holding today's Subcommittee hearing and for including my
    bill on today's agenda, Senate bill 258, which is the Ruby
    Mountains Protection Act.
        This bill would prohibit oil and gas development within the
    Ruby Mountains area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
    which is located in Elko and White Pine Counties in Nevada. The
    bill was created after the Forest Service received a request by
    an out of state member of the public to develop 54,000 acres of
    land within the Ruby Mountains. The prospect of oil and gas
    leasing in the Rubies sparked a public outcry from people of
    all walks of life and across the political spectrum.
        The Ruby Mountains, often referred to as Nevada's Swiss
    Alps, are treasured by all Nevadans with an overwhelming
    majority advocating for the prohibition of oil and gas
    activities. The bill is supported by the Te-Moak Tribe,
    Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Nevada Conservation League,
    the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Patagonia, Friends of
    Nevada Wilderness, and the Sportsmen for the Rubies which is a
    coalition of several hunting and fishing groups, including
    Trout Unlimited and the Theodore Conservation Partnership.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a unanimous consent to
    have the letters of support from these organizations entered
    into the record.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        [Letters of support for the Ruby Mountains Protection Act
    follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        This area of my home state is truly a hidden gem. The
    landscape and outdoor recreation opportunities bring thousands
    of visitors from across the state, the country and the world.
        After receiving over 10,000 comments in near unanimous
    opposition, the Forest Service, just last week, formally
    rejected the oil and gas development proposal saying that
    leasing is not an appropriate activity in the Rubies noting the
    very low potential for oil and gas in this particular area.
        Our local Forest Service administrator noted that any
    economic benefits from the drilling would be limited compared
    to the money the natural resources contribute to the area
    economy through tourism, recreation and livestock grazing.
        However, it is necessary to enact Senate bill 258 in order
    to permanently protect the Ruby Mountains from any future
    attempt to develop this land for oil and gas purposes. It is
    important that we recognize there are certain areas where
    certain development is not appropriate. It is not wanted and
    should be formally set aside for preservation and
    prioritization of other land management purposes, and that is
    exactly what this bill sets out to do.
        Enacting the Ruby Mountains Protection Act will not only
    preserve these great public spaces and scenic landscapes
    enjoyed by thousands of Nevadans and visitors each year, but it
    also preserves the recreational opportunities, outdoor economy,
    rare wildlife and plant life and the local culture that these
    beloved mountains support. It is imperative that the Ruby
    Mountains be preserved from potential oil and gas development.
        Thank you.
        Senator Lee. Senator Manchin.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing this afternoon.
        Most of the bills on today's agenda address issues of
    importance in the home states of the sponsoring senators,
    although two address broader policies. These bills cover a
    range of issues from protecting important wildlife habitat and
    cultural areas from potential mineral development to providing
    for important outdoor recreation and hunting opportunities,
    providing authority for renewable energy development in U.S.
    territories and addressing the local land management issues. I
    understand the Administration has expressed concerns with the
    bills proposing to withdraw certain public lands in New Mexico,
    Oregon and Nevada from mineral development. But I think the
    sponsors have identified important cultural areas and habitat
    that merit protection. I look forward to working with the
    sponsors and my colleagues to find a way to move these bills
    forward.
        I was interested to see Senators Daines and Tester's bill
    to authorize a plaque to be installed on national forest land
    in Montana to honor four Air Force servicemen who were killed
    in a 1962 plane crash. One of them was Lieutenant Fred
    Hixenbaugh, and he was from West Virginia. I know the family,
    and there are an awful lot of Hixenbaughs in West Virginia.
    Authorizing a plaque to honor these men is a fitting tribute,
    and I look forward to moving this bill through Committee also.
        I wanted to come to the hearing this afternoon to let my
    colleagues know that I want to work with Chairman Murkowski and
    the bill sponsors to address any concerns that are raised
    during the hearing so that we can find a way to ultimately have
    these bills reported by the full Committee with bipartisan
    support.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
        We will now hear from Senator Mike Braun who is here to
    talk to us about his bill.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE BRAUN,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

        Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
    to appear before the Subcommittee in support of my Senate bill
    434 on Public Lands.
        This legislation instructs the Department of Interior to
    produce a one-time report to Congress pertaining to federal
    ownership of lands and, most importantly, the resources the
    Federal Government expends on maintenance.
        As a lifelong conservationist, I believe that we must be
    good stewards to our public lands. They provide immense
    opportunity for recreation, public education and conservation.
    However, the government does a poor job at maintaining this
    natural resource. Current estimates suggest that our nation has
    a backlog of maintenance on our public lands of more than $19
    billion, $19 billion. The statistics currently included in
    government reports and budget requests are just inadequate.
        For example, the '18 budget request for the Department of
    the Interior used a maintenance backlog number from 2016. That
    report estimated that the backlog across the Department was
    only $15 billion, a number that likely greatly underestimates
    the true need.
        This is why Congress needs to instruct the Department of
    the Interior to prepare a full report on this issue. This is
    why Congress should swiftly pass Senate bill 434.
        Anything of proportion in this, anywhere across the
    spectrum of government or business with holdings this large and
    being uncertain about what it costs for the upkeep or the
    maintenance would be unheard of. And my proposals, Mr.
    Chairman, build off your strong record on this issue. In my
    opinion, Congress has an obligation to conduct comprehensive
    oversight of our federal lands, and I believe that my bill
    provides Congress the necessary information needed to fulfill
    this obligation.
        Thank you.
        [The written testimony of Senator Braun follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7306.040

        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Braun.
        It is now time for us to hear from our two witnesses. We
    have two witnesses appearing before the Subcommittee today. The
    first is Mr. Frank Beum, the Acting Associate Deputy Chief of
    the U.S. Forest Service, and the second is Mr. Mike Nedd, the
    Deputy Director for Operations at the U.S. Bureau of Land
    Management.
        At the end of the witness testimonies, members will be able
    to ask questions so that the millions of viewers watching on TV
    will be able to watch that and we will be able to enter that
    for our record. Your full written testimony will be made part
    of the official Subcommittee record. Please keep your
    statements limited to five minutes so that we will have time
    for questions. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
        Mr. Beum, we will go with you first.

      STATEMENT OF FRANK R. BEUM, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF,
              NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE

        Mr. Beum. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
    inviting me to share the Administration's position on several
    bills that would affect the Forest Service.
        To start with, S. 242, the Lowell Observatory Conveyance
    Act, would direct us to convey land owned and occupied by the
    Lowell Observatory near Flagstaff, Arizona. Because of the
    timber reservation and reversionary clause established in the
    1910 Act, there isn't an appropriate authority that would allow
    the agency to process the Observatory's request to remove the
    timber reservation and convey the United States' reversionary
    interest. If this bill were enacted, it would provide the
    authority needed to complete the conveyance to the Observatory.
    The Forest Service has no concerns with and does not oppose S.
    242.
        S. 258 would prohibit the Department of the Interior from
    issuing oil or gas leases on National Forest System land in the
    Ruby Mountains Ranger District on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National
    Forest in Nevada. In March the agency released a Draft Record
    of Decision, including that no leasing should occur on a
    portion of the Ruby Mountains Ranger District due to the low
    potential for oil and gas resources because of unfavorable
    geologic conditions. On May 7th, as has been mentioned, the
    ``no leasing'' decision was signed by the Forest Supervisor.
    The Department notes that administrative tools such as the
    environmental analysis completed on this proposal are available
    to inform these types of decisions. With such agency and
    community interaction leading to successful outcomes using
    existing authorities, the Department believes this bill is
    unnecessary.
        S. 490 would designate a currently unnamed mountain ridge
    located on the Gallatin National Forest as the ``B-47 Ridge.''
    The bill would also authorize a plaque memorializing the 1962
    crash of a B-47 to be placed on this ridge. The plaque would
    honor the four-man crew that perished in the crash. The
    Department supports honoring the brave individuals who served
    our country and died tragically in this ridgetop crash.
        S. 1262, the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act of 2019,
    would expand an existing wilderness boundary, establish two
    national recreation areas and permanently withdraw two areas of
    federal land from the mining laws of the United States to
    protect them from new mining claims, other mineral leasing and
    geothermal leasing.
        In Section 3, the national recreation areas would consist
    only of BLM lands so we defer to the Department of the
    Interior. We would like to better understand what lands are
    covered under Section 4, the Expansion of the Wild Rogue
    Wilderness Area. Given the scale of the map referenced in the
    bill, it is unclear if any acreage of National Forest System
    land is included in the proposed expansion. We would like to
    work with the Committee and the BLM to develop a detailed inset
    map in the legislation to ensure the boundaries between the BLM
    and the Forest Service parcels are clear and unambiguous. And
    then finally Section 5 proposes a mineral withdrawal for two
    areas known as Rough and Ready and Baldface Creeks, and Hunter
    Creek and Pistol River Watershed--Headwaters, that total nearly
    96,000 acres of National Forest System lands.
        In 2016, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land
    and Minerals Management administratively withdrew these lands
    for a 20-year term so Congress might consider legislation to
    permanently withdraw these areas.
        Now, the Forest Service is completing a Surface Use
    Determination as part of the process to determine valid
    existing rights within the withdrawal area. We expect to
    complete the determination by this August.
        In conclusion, delivering dependable energy, economic
    benefits and providing jobs for rural communities while
    restoring ecosystems is a top priority of our agency. We would
    be interested in working with the sponsors and the Subcommittee
    to address the specific concerns noted in our testimony to
    accomplish our shared multiple use goals for National Forest
    System lands.
        This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
    to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Beum follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Nedd.

      STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEDD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS,
       BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Nedd. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, certainly Mr.
    Ranking Member in his absence and Senator Cortez Masto, members
    of the Subcommittee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. I
    am Michael Nedd, the Deputy Director for Operations of the
    Bureau of Land Management.
        I will briefly summarize the written statements concerning
    the four BLM related bills on today's agenda.
        S. 434 requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare
    and submit to Congress a report that describes all federal land
    holdings under the jurisdiction of the Department and the total
    cost of maintaining these federal land holdings for each of
    Fiscal Years 2017 through 2019. The bill further requires that
    this report be submitted within 120 days of the delivery of the
    FY 2020 President's budget request to Congress. While the
    Department supports the bill's goals of ensuring accurate and
    timely data of federal land holdings, we would like to work
    with the sponsor and the Subcommittee on a few modifications
    that we believe would aid in implementation.
        S. 526, the Buffalo Tract Protection Act, would subject to
    valid and existing right to withdraw approximately 4,200 acres
    of federal minerals estate near the growing population area of
    Placitas, New Mexico, from all form of mineral development. The
    Department notes that the population of the Albuquerque metro
    area, which includes Placitas, is expected to nearly double
    within the next 25 to 30 years and federal minerals will be an
    important source of minerals--of materials for future
    infrastructure needs. The Department supports approaches that
    could protect high-value resources while still accommodating
    uses and activities permitting on BLM managed land. We would
    like to work with the sponsor on modification to this bill in a
    way that would ensure a full range of uses for this area.
        S. 1079, the Chaco Canyon Heritage Protection Act, would
    withdraw approximately 201,000 federal surface acres and
    approximately 334,000 acres of federal subsurface mineral
    estates surrounding the Chaco Cultural National Historical Park
    in Northwestern New Mexico from public land mining, minerals
    and geothermal leasing laws. In FY 2018 the total revenue
    generated from responsible mineral development on federal lands
    in New Mexico alone was over $1.3 billion. The Secretary also
    recognizes there are some places that may benefit from
    protection. Striking the appropriate balance for public land
    use is an important mission that the Department takes
    seriously. We would like to work with the sponsors to identify
    the best approach to protecting this special area as the BLM
    continues to evaluate and update its land management plan.
        S. 1262, the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act, would
    establish two new recreation areas and expand the existing
    wilderness, Rogue Wilderness, on intermixed O&C land and public
    domain forest managed by the BLM in Western Oregon. As required
    under existing law, the BLM manages its own land to provide a
    permanent source of timber, protected watersheds, contribute to
    economic stability for local community and provide recreational
    facilities. S. 1262 would also withdraw approximately 101,000
    acres of federal land managed by the Forest Service and the BLM
    in Southwestern Oregon. The Department would like to work
    forward with the sponsor on modification to the bill to
    increase public access, facilitate outdoor recreational
    opportunities and reduce potential impacts to management and
    harvest of timber and other forest products.
        Finally, the Department will submit a statement for the
    record on S. 499, the Offshore Wind and Territories Act. The
    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management would be happy to respond for
    the record to any question you may have on S. 499.
        [The written statement referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Nedd. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify,
    and I am happy to answer any questions you may have on the
    other four bills.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Nedd follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Lee. Thank you very much to both of you. We will
    now begin alternating five-minute rounds of questions.
        Mr. Nedd, I would like to start with you. You heard Senator
    Braun speak a moment ago about his bill, S. 434. You made
    reference to it. Senator Braun's proposal is something that I
    would support, because it will help the American taxpayer
    understand the cost of maintaining this massive federal estate.
    If the bill advances to markup, I would like to see the
    legislation amended so as to include Forest Service holdings as
    well as BLM holdings.
        Now Senator Braun mentioned the Congressional Research
    Service tells us that the total amount of federal landownership
    in your respective agencies is not definitively known. I would
    like to ask each of you whether you agree with that statement
    and, if so, why is that the case? We will start with you, Mr.
    Nedd.
        Mr. Nedd. Well, Senator, the BLM, or the Department of the
    Interior, I should say, certainly with the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
    and BLM, we do have records that suggest at least closely the
    land holdings we have. So within the BLM we have about 245
    million acres of land, and every year in our public land
    statistic we do publish those lands, including any lands that
    may have moved out of federal ownership or into ownership.
    Similarly, the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife and BOR
    keeps records.
        Senator Lee. So would you say that the amount of land under
    the management of BLM is, in fact, definitively known?
        Mr. Nedd. I would say it is known, yes, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        How about you, Mr. Beum?
        Mr. Beum. Yes, we manage 193 million acres, roughly, of
    National Forest System lands. And again, we publish on an
    annual basis our land status. I believe we know what our land
    status is, yes, sir.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        So if I am understanding you both correctly, you would be
    saying that the uncertainty would not be as a result of Forest
    Service or BLM, it would be through some other federal agency,
    that that is where the uncertainty lies?
        In other words, what you have both just told me is that the
    total number of land under your management in your respective
    agency is definitively known whereas CRS said the total amount
    of the federal estate, the total number of acres in the federal
    estate, is not definitively known.
        Mr. Nedd. Well, Senator, in my testimony or in my written
    statement, certainly the Department listed in here where they
    knew what the lands for the Bureau of Reclamation at 7.8
    million acres. The lands that are managed within the Fish and
    Wildlife at 150 million acres--I'm sorry, the Fish and Wildlife
    of 80 million acres and the Bureau of Reclamation at 7.8 and
    the BLM at 245. So I think in my statement there's those
    figures and I would say the Department of the Interior land
    management agency is aware of the lands they have.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Mr. Nedd, I want to move on to S. 1079, Senator Udall's
    bill. It is a bill that its message is protecting Native
    American cultural resources from horizontal drilling. But
    within the proposed 1,400 square mile buffer zone it would set
    allotments of Navajo Tribal members. For some allotees, the
    mineral development may be a significant source of income in an
    otherwise economically disadvantaged region. For many, it
    certainly is a source of employment.
        So first I would like to ask about the purported necessity
    for this legislation. As part of the regular administrative
    process for proposed oil and gas leases, isn't the BLM already
    required by law to consult with tribes and to conduct cultural
    resource clearances?
        Mr. Nedd. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Lee. And if that is the case, is there really any
    threat to those resources currently or anything inadequate
    about that process that is already in place?
        Mr. Nedd. Senator, right now we're going through a land use
    or a land amendment process. And so, we're consulting with the
    tribe and at the end of that process it will reveal if there is
    any potential impact on how to mitigate it.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Do you know, does the BLM have any idea how many Navajo
    allotments might be inside of this proposed 1,400 square mile
    buffer zone?
        Mr. Nedd. Senator, I don't have that information here with
    me, but I would love to take that back as a question for the
    record.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Do you know how tribal allotees and horizontal drilling on
    allotted lands might be affected by the protection zones and by
    this legislation that creates them?
        Mr. Nedd. Senator, it's my understanding that tribal and
    allotees would not be affected by this withdrawal. However,
    there will be challenges given the intermixing of public,
    tribal and private land and, of course, the geography of the
    lands.
        Senator Lee. Do you have any idea whether any economic
    analysis has been done to quantify or in any way estimate the
    impact the protection zone might have on local jobs, including
    the impact on the tribal economy?
        Mr. Nedd. A social economic analysis would have been done
    for the plan, but I don't have that information with me here,
    Senator.
        Senator Lee. Okay, but you believe one has been done?
        Mr. Nedd. To some degree, I would believe, yes, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Alright, I see my time is expired.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Beum, I want to talk to you a little bit about Senate
    bill 258, which is the Ruby Mountains Protection Act. So help
    me understand how the Forest Service says one day that oil and
    gas leasing is not an appropriate activity there, but then the
    next day you oppose a bill that says oil and gas leasing in
    that same area is not appropriate activity?
        Mr. Beum. Yes, ma'am.
        So we conducted an analysis on, as you mentioned, 54,000
    acres of the Ranger District. That proposed action was brought
    to us by the BLM from an expression of interest from a member
    of the public. So that's how we did our analysis based on that
    specific proposal.
        So I guess what we're saying in our testimony is that we
    would use a similar proposal or similar process, environmental
    analysis or assessment, to analyze a substantive proposal, so--
    --
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right. But you have already
    determined that oil and gas leasing is not appropriate there.
    In fact, you issued a press release saying the analysis
    revealed unfavorable geologic conditions in the area, meaning
    there is little to no potential of oil and gas resources in the
    area. So why not make it permanent? Why go through this process
    again? Because literally this Act in this legislation makes it
    permanent, correct?
        Mr. Beum. Correct.
        Senator Cortez Masto. And what you are doing does not
    necessarily make it permanent. You are going to have to go
    through the process all over again if a request is made to look
    into oil and gas, correct?
        Mr. Beum. Yes, that's correct.
        Senator Cortez Masto. And you are going to have to spend
    taxpayer funds to do that, correct?
        Mr. Beum. Correct.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
        So there is a difference between--this is not an
    unnecessary bill. This is necessary because it makes it
    permanent, what you have actually, already determined, correct?
        Mr. Beum. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        So I guess that is why I am confused. Instead of coming in
    here either supporting it or remaining neutral, why are you
    coming in and saying it is unnecessary because that just does
    not make sense to me. I guess I am more concerned about this
    Administration, particularly, playing politics with this
    instead of doing the right thing.
        Again, this is supported by Nevadans. It is supported by
    outdoorsmen and recreational folks. It is a benefit to the
    economy. It is something that even your Forest Service
    administrator on the ground has said. That is why you ruled oil
    and gas leasing is not appropriate.
        Let me ask you this. The legislation that is before you
    does not prohibit mineral development, correct?
        Mr. Beum. Your legislation?
        Senator Cortez Masto. Correct.
        Mr. Beum. It withdraws the land from minerals.
        Senator Cortez Masto. For oil and gas leasing.
        Mr. Beum. For oil and gas, yes, ma'am.
        Senator Cortez Masto. But it does not prohibit mineral
    development if somebody decides they want to look into that,
    correct?
        Mr. Beum. Yes.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Right.
        So the idea that I am hearing that somehow this also
    prohibits mineral development, that is an incorrect statement
    that I have heard today, correct? It is incorrect.
        Mr. Beum. I believe that's true.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Too many corrects for you.
        Mr. Beum. Yup.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.
        So let me just verify, just say this, the Act only talks
    about oil and gas leasing and it is the decision that you have
    already determined. It makes it permanent. What you are doing
    does not make it permanent. In fact, you would waste more
    taxpayer dollars if you are asked to review it and have to look
    at the same area again, correct?
        Mr. Beum. Yeah, the Department believes we have
    administrative tools to analyze a future proposal. That's where
    the Department's----
        Senator Cortez Masto. Which is unnecessary in this case.
    You have made a determination. This makes it permanent. And
    that is all I am asking for.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Beum. I understand.
        Senator Lee. Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Lee.
        Mr. Chairman, today I get the privilege to discuss an
    important bill to my state, Senate bill 490, the B-47 Ridge
    Designation Act.
        This bill designates an unnamed ridge, B-47 Ridge, in honor
    of four servicemen who lost their life in a plane crash in Park
    County, Montana. That is not too far away where I grew up.
        This is the same area, incidentally, that we protect
    through the Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act which was signed
    into law earlier this year by President Trump. This bill also
    allows the dedication of a memorial plaque at the site of the
    crash, so this accident will never be forgotten.
        On July 23rd, 1962, a B-47E Strategic Air Command Bomber,
    originating from Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, was performing
    a routine training mission while over the skies at Paradise
    Valley in Montana, just south of Livingston. The normal routine
    flight plan had the plane at 23,000 feet over Dillon, Montana,
    when the last communication came in from the crew. Soon after,
    the B-47 bomber crashed into the southwest slope of Emigrant
    Peak, killing all on board. Captain Bill Faulconer, Lieutenant
    Lloyd Sawyers, Lieutenant David Sutton and Lieutenant Fred
    Hixenbaugh all tragically lost their lives serving our country
    that day in 1962. And these men came from all across our great
    nation, from West Virginia, from Kansas, from Texas, from
    Oklahoma. In fact, if you were to hike up to that site today
    you will still see debris scattered on the grounds and the
    still-scorched trees, but there is no designation plaque or
    explanation for the visitor to know the story of these brave
    men.
        Only Congress and the U.S. Geological Survey have the power
    to name unnamed geological features. However, USGS cannot
    authorize a memorial plaque to honor the fallen. Congress can,
    and as we are doing here today. That is why I introduced the
    bipartisan B-47 Ridge Designation Act.
        So you can see looking up here the pictures of the
    servicemen that lost their lives and some of the debris that is
    in the crash site.
        [The photographs referred to follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. This tells the story of these brave men and
    ensures the sacrifice is never forgotten so their families,
    their friends, visitors to this ridge will see what happened on
    that tragic day. After over half a century, I believe it is
    time that these men are memorialized for their service.
        This bill is supported by Montana's entire Congressional
    delegation, Senator Tester and myself as well as Congressman
    Gianforte, who is going to champion that bill on the House
    side. It is also supported by the families of the fallen men
    and, importantly, the local elected officials and the community
    as a whole.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to add their support
    letters to the record.
        Senator Lee. Without objection.
        [Letters of support for Senate bill 490 follow:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Daines. Mr. Beum, question.
        My legislation allows the dedication of a memorial plaque
    at the site without using taxpayer dollars. It is my
    understanding the Forest Service was unable to approve a permit
    for a memorial as it was against policy.
        With my legislation will the families now be able to place
    a memorial plaque to honor these men?
        Mr. Beum. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Daines. Thank you.
        I look forward to voting this bill out of Committee, Mr.
    Chairman, and getting it signed into law as soon as possible.
        I yield back my time.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, and Senator Daines, I look
    forward to supporting your legislation.
        Mr. Nedd, do you believe the BLM's consultation with tribal
    officials thus far has been sufficient in the case of Chaco
    Canyon and the leasing in the area?
        Mr. Nedd. Senator, based on the information I've been
    given, it's ongoing consultation. So, I'm not in a position to
    say if it's sufficient as yet since it's ongoing.
        Senator Heinrich. I appreciate that answer.
        Mr. Chair, I would urge you, relating to your question to
    Mr. Nedd about the adequacy of the consultation process to also
    ask the tribes that same question, because I think they would
    share a different perspective than what you heard earlier in
    this hearing.
        The unfortunate truth of our current consultation policy is
    that it only requires agency officials to meet with tribal
    leaders. It does not require the agency to listen to what they
    have to say or to incorporate their concerns into the
    management plan. So I would ask Mr. Nedd once again, how is the
    BLM incorporating the information that you have learned from
    tribal consultation meetings thus far into the upcoming
    management plan?
        Mr. Nedd. Well, Senator, again, consultation is an ongoing
    process and so the BLM takes input from the tribes or the
    members and then would make adjustment accordingly. In terms of
    specific changes for this plan, I could not give you that right
    here since I'm not very familiar with the details of the plan.
        Senator Heinrich. So, Mr. Chair, once again, I would raise
    the issue that repeatedly we have seen parcels in this area
    offered up for lease, a huge hue and outcry from both elected
    and community officials across New Mexico, tribal officials
    across New Mexico and then those get pulled back. So the
    impression that that leaves many tribal leaders with is that
    they are not being listened to in this case. And I think that
    perspective informs why we have legislation proposed at this
    time.
        I want to turn to the Buffalo Tract legislation. I think we
    can all agree that the parcels at issue in the Buffalo Tract
    Protection Act are not typical BLM parcels, at least in New
    Mexico. Three of the four are less than 1,000 acres in size
    and, more importantly, they are intermixed directly among
    residential development. So the consequences of mineral
    development, and I will be clear, my father and my grandfather
    both worked in mineral development and mining in Nevada for
    many years, but including gravel mining are very different in a
    residential context than in more rural or, certainly, more
    unpopulated areas that the BLM largely manages. The health
    impacts are more concentrated, the impact on wildlife is more
    detrimental when most of the surrounding area is already built
    up.
        So once again, Mr. Nedd, I would just ask how the BLM took
    into account the development pattern of this area when deciding
    that the best use of this area is a gravel mine rather than,
    for example, recreation or wildlife habitat?
        Mr. Nedd. So, thank you for the question, Senator.
        Normally, the BLM will start from a scoping and based on
    the scoping the local community or stakeholders will identify
    the issues. BLM will then proceed to do some analysis on that.
        It is my understanding that with the cooperating agency
    with the inclusion of tribe, BLM has been going through this
    planning process to determine how best to manage the values in
    that area.
        Senator Heinrich. I think you very adequately described the
    NEPA process in terms of moving from scoping to action.
        What concerns me is that when looking at the two local
    pueblos, both of them are vociferously opposed in this case.
    When looking at the community groups, they are opposed. The
    County is opposed. I am still looking for the community voice
    that is not opposed to this particular location for a gravel
    mine.
        So I would just leave it at that, Mr. Chair, and I think
    you have a more complete picture now for why legislation is
    absolutely required in both of these instances.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. I appreciate your
    insight on that.
        Mr. Nedd, let's go back to you for a minute.
        Turning to Senator Wyden's bill, S. 1262, the title of this
    bill is the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act. The bill would
    significantly create two new roadless recreation areas. Those
    are terms I don't often hear together, roadless and recreation
    area, but these would total 120,000 acres. The same bill, as I
    understand it, would also add 60,000 acres of new wilderness to
    an existing wilderness area that is 35,000 acres, known as the
    Wild Rogue Wilderness Area.
        Your testimony mentioned that two of the proposed
    recreation areas cover O&C lands that are part of the timber
    harvest land base under the BLM's 2016 Resource Management
    Plan.
        Under this legislation, the Wyden bill, new roads and also
    temporary roads would, if I understand it correctly, be
    prohibited in the recreation areas. Is that correct?
        Mr. Nedd. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. Given those restrictions, the fact that we
    would be prohibiting new roads and temporary roads from this
    area, what impact might those restrictions have on needed
    forest management to address wildfire risk?
        Mr. Nedd. Mr. Chairman, we believe the bill allows for the
    treatment or the dealing with wildfire. However, timber harvest
    and timber production, we think it would have a significant
    impact.
        Senator Lee. What kind of impact? How would you describe
    what kind of loss both economically in terms of timber receipts
    would the recreation area designation pose?
        Mr. Nedd. Well, I think from timber receipts, I don't have
    an exact number to give you, Mr. Chairman, but under the
    management plan, I believe, it was about 200 or 2.7 or 2.78
    million board feet or something to that effect. So it would
    impact the development of that or the harvesting of that timber
    and without any roads, whether it's temporary or permanent,
    will not be able to get to that timber.
        Senator Lee. Right. That, in turn, will have a pretty
    significant impact on people who live in and around that area
    and who depend on that as a source of employment. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Nedd. That's my understanding, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. Will you be working with local counties and
    other stakeholders to continue to assess the economic impact
    this might have?
        Mr. Nedd. Currently we're doing an analysis. So yes, it
    would include speaking with stakeholders, that would include
    county.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        Interestingly enough, notwithstanding its name, in
    reviewing the purpose of these recreation areas, the purpose is
    measured by the intended effect of them, it does not appear to
    be focused on recreation. Based on BLM's reading of the
    legislation, does the BLM have a clear understanding of what
    recreation uses and purposes would be covered in those
    recreation areas?
        Mr. Nedd. Mr. Chairman, I think we would like to work with
    the sponsor to clarify the language. However, we believe if it
    was designated, it would prohibit access to trailheads. It
    would prohibit access to scenic areas. And as America gets
    older, America needs to have a different way to reach to those
    destination points. So we would love to work with the sponsor
    to clarify and understand better what would be impacted.
        Senator Lee. Right.
        The bill also withdraws hundreds of thousands of acres from
    mineral exploration and mineral development. And while this
    excludes existing mineral rights, what can you tell me about
    what guarantees those leaseholders have that the other
    restrictions, especially the limited road access, would impact
    their ability to develop their claims?
        Mr. Nedd. So, Mr. Chairman, the bill recognizes valid and
    existing rights, so a valid and existing right, assuming if
    it's a mineral and its validity is passed, the BLM will have to
    work with the client to provide access to it. So my
    understanding is if there's a valid and existing right, they
    would be able to develop that right.
        Senator Lee. Okay. And that protection extends to and
    includes their ability to access it, notwithstanding the
    roadless provisions.
        Mr. Nedd. If it's valid and existing, yes.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        I want to talk to you next about the Buffalo Tract
    Protection Act, S. 526.
        This is a bill that would withdraw about 4,000 acres of
    four parcels of BLM land, known as the Buffalo Tract, from sand
    mining and gravel mining. This is a small area that was
    appraised as including approximately 36 million tons of mainly
    red dog shale, the kind of rocks used for maintaining hiking
    trails and replacing grass lawns with rock yards in the
    southwestern region of the United States.
        Population growth in Albuquerque is booming which means
    that new homes and trails need nearby sources of gravel. If the
    gravel in the Buffalo Tract were put up for sale, would BLM
    expect it to be competitively bid?
        Mr. Nedd. We believe, yes, Senator, yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. In fact, do you know of companies that would
    likely be interested in it?
        Mr. Nedd. My understanding is there is interest in the
    area.
        Senator Lee. Okay. How much value is this resource? Is it
    something you would describe as substantial?
        Mr. Nedd. I would call it significant.
        Senator Lee. Certainly not de minimis, not something to be
    cast aside.
        I also want to talk about the Ruby Mountains Protection
    Act,
    S. 258.
        The Forest Service geological analysis of the Ruby
    Mountains determined that oil and gas potential for the area
    was one that they would describe as ``low to no potential.'' Is
    that right?
        Mr. Beum. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Lee. And the Forest Service also recently rejected
    BLM's request to examine the suitability of the opening of the
    area to development. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Beum. Yes, the Forest Supervisor issued a decision last
    week confirming the ``no leasing'' alternative.
        Senator Lee. Have any local interests objected to the
    Forest Service's rejection of the oil and gas leasing in the
    Ruby Mountains?
        Mr. Beum. Mr. Chairman, we have not. We did not receive any
    objection to the decision opposing the ``no leasing''
    alternative.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        This has been very helpful. I want to thank you both for
    coming here.
        We will keep the record open for two weeks so that members
    can supplement the record or ask additional questions.
        I want to thank you both for your service and for your
    willingness to come and testify today.
        We stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]