[Senate Hearing 117-141]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                                                       S. Hrg. 117-141

                          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 SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   on


  S. 173                       S. 567                      S. 1076
  S. 177                       S. 569                      S. 1128
  S. 182                       S. 609                      S. 1222
  S. 455                       S. 904                      S. 1686
  S. 554                       S. 1008
 


                               ----------                              

                             JUNE 16, 2021

                               ----------                              





                 [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

44-960                    WASHINGTON : 2023
















               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman

RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                                 ------                                

           Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining

                     CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Chair

RON WYDEN                            MIKE LEE
MARTIN HEINRICH                      JAMES E. RISCH
MAZIE K. HIRONO                      STEVE DAINES
ANGUS S. KING, JR.                   LISA MURKOWSKI
MARK KELLY                           JAMES LANKFORD
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER                 BILL CASSIDY
                                     CINDY HYDE-SMITH

                      Renae Black, Staff Director
                      Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                     David Brooks, General Counsel
             Bryan Petit, Senior Professional Staff Member
             Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
              Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
        John Tanner, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Lands








                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, Subcommittee Chair and a U.S. 
  Senator from Nevada............................................     1
Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator 
  from Utah......................................................    55
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............    57
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., a U.S. Senator from Hawaii................    58
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W., a U.S. Senator from Colorado.........    59

                               WITNESSES
                                Panel I

Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from Washington...............    59
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from Colorado............    61
Cramer, Hon. Kevin, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota.............   153
Romney, Hon. Mitt, a U.S. Senator from Utah......................   154

                                Panel II

Culver, Nada Wolff, Deputy Director of Policy and Programs, 
  Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.....   156
French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest 
  Service........................................................   192
Stratton, Hon. Keven, Member, Utah House of Representatives......   205
Henson, Marci, Director, Clark County (NV) Department of 
  Environment and Sustainability.................................   212
Torres, Jocelyn, Senior Field Director, Conservation Lands 
  Foundation.....................................................   222
Pitney, Pat, Interim President, University of Alaska.............   231

          ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

ACE Outdoor Essentials et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   241
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians:
    Resolution 2020-21, dated July 2, 2020.......................   399
American Whitewater:
    Letter for the Record........................................    64
Appalachian Trail Conservancy:
    Letter for the Record........................................   279
Arapahoe Basin:
    Letter for the Record........................................    66
Basalt, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    69
Battle Born Progress:
    Letter for the Record........................................     3
Bennet, Hon. Michael F.:
    Opening Statement............................................    61
Boebert, Hon. Lauren, a member of the U.S. House of 
  Representatives from the State of Colorado:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   282
Boulder City, NV (City of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    21
Breckenridge, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    71
Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
    Map depicting the Wild Olympics Wilderness...................   251
    Wild Olympics Campaign Endorsements..........................   253
Carbondale, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    73
Carbondale Historical Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................    75
Carter, Janet:
    Letter for the Record........................................   283
Citizens Campaign for the Environment et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   284
Clark County (NV) Regional Flood Control District:
    Letter for the Record........................................     4
Clark County (NV) Water Reclamation District:
    Letter for the Record........................................     5
Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife et al:
    Letter for the Record........................................   285
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks:
    Letter for the Record........................................    77
    Statement for the Record.....................................   287
College of Southern Nevada:
    Letter for the Record........................................     6
Colorado Backcountry Hunters and Anglers:
    Letter for the Record........................................    67
Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs:
    Letter for the Record........................................    79
Colorado Department of Natural Resources:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   291
(The) Conservation Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................    80
Conservation Colorado:
    Letter for the Record........................................    82
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
    Southern Nevada Land Management Map..........................    53
Cramer, Hon. Kevin:
    Opening Statement............................................   153
Crested Butte, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    83
Crowell, Bradley and David Bobzien
    Statement for the Record.....................................     7
Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    85
Culver, Nada Wolff:
    Opening Statement............................................   156
    Written Testimony............................................   158
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   271
Defenders of Wildlife:
    Letter for the Record with attached maps.....................   305
Dillon, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    63
Eagle County (CO):
    Letter for the Record........................................    87
French, Chris:
    Opening Statement............................................   192
    Written Testimony............................................   194
    Responses to Questions for the Record........................   275
Friends of Nevada Wilderness:
    Letter for the Record........................................     8
Friends of Red Rock Canyon:
    Letter for the Record........................................    10
Frisco, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    88
Get Outdoors Nevada:
    Letter for the Record........................................    11
Glenwood Springs, CO (City of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    89
    Resolution 2009-15, dated July 16, 2009......................    91
    Letter from Glenwood Springs Mayor Bruce Christensen to 
      Representative John Salazar of Colorado, dated August 6, 
      2010.......................................................    93
    Letter from Garfield County Commissioner John Martin, 
      Glenwood Springs Mayor Mike Gamba, Pitkin County 
      Commissioner Steve Child, and Carbondale Mayor Stacey 
      Bernot to Ruth Welch, Colorado State Director of the U.S. 
      Bureau of Land Management, dated December 17, 2015.........    94
Governor's Office of Economic Development (NV):
    Statement for the Record.....................................    12
Great Basin Water Network:
    Letter for the Record........................................   312
Great Old Broads for Wilderness:
    Letter for the Record........................................    95
Gunnison County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................    97
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
    Opening Statement............................................    57
Henderson, NV (City of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    14
Henderson (NV) Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    16
Henson, Marci:
    Opening Statement............................................   212
    Written Testimony............................................   214
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W.:
    Opening Statement............................................    59
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K.:
    Opening Statement............................................    58
Independent Petroleum Association of America:
    Letter for the Record........................................   316
International Mountain Bicycling Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    99
    Statement for the Record on S. 173...........................   317
    Statement for the Record on S. 1222..........................   320
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe:
    Letter for the Record........................................   407
Las Vegas, NV (City of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    17
Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce:
    Letter for the Record........................................    18
Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance:
    Letter for the Record........................................    19
Latin Chamber of Commerce Nevada:
    Letter for the Record........................................    20
Lee, Hon. Mike:
    Opening Statement............................................    55
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe:
    Letter for the Record........................................   405
Mesquite, NV (City of):
    Letter for the Record........................................    22
Moapa Band of Paiutes:
    Letter for the Record........................................    23
Mormon Women for Ethical Government:
    Letter for the Record........................................    25
Mountain Village, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................   102
Murray, Hon. Patty:
    Opening Statement............................................    59
NAIOP Southern Nevada:
    Letter for the Record........................................    27
National Association of Home Builders:
    Letter for the Record........................................    29
National Parks Conservation Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................   103
National Wildlife Federation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   104
National Wildlife Refuge Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    30
Native Voters Alliance Nevada:
    Letter for the Record........................................    31
Nevada Conservation League:
    Letter for the Record........................................    32
Nevada HAND:
    Letter for the Record........................................    33
Nevada Housing Coalition:
    Letter for the Record........................................    34
Nevada State AFL-CIO:
    Letter for the Record........................................    36
Nevada State College:
    Letter for the Record........................................    37
Nevada Subcontractors Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    38
Nevada Wildlife Federation:
    Letter for the Record........................................    40
New Belgium Brewing et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   106
Old Spanish Trail Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    41
    Southern Nevada Land Management Map with Old Spanish National 
      Historic Trail Overlay.....................................    44
Ophir, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................   109
Osage Minerals Council:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   323
Ouray County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   112
    Resolution 2016-009, dated March 15, 2016....................   113
    Resolution 2011-007, dated February 1, 2011..................   116
    Resolution 2007-075, dated November 5, 2007..................   118
    U.S. Forest Service Map entitled ``Proposed Whitehouse 
      Additions to the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness, December 1, 
      2010''.....................................................   120
Outdoor Alliance:
    Statement for the Record.....................................   332
(The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
    Letter for the Record........................................    45
    Statement for the Record.....................................   344
Pitkin County (CO) Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   121
Pitney, Pat:
    Opening Statement............................................   231
    Written Testimony............................................   233
Polis, Hon. Jared, Governor of the State of Colorado:
    Letter for the Record........................................   123
Portland Cement Association et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   349
Quileute Tribal Council:
    Letter for the Record........................................   401
Quinalt Indian Nation:
    Letter for the Record........................................   403
Ridgway, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................   125
Roaring Fork Audubon Society:
    Letter for the Record........................................   127
Roaring Fork Group, Sierra Club, Colorado Chapter:
    Letter for the Record........................................   129
Romney, Hon. Mitt:
    Opening Statement............................................   154
San Juan County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   131
San Miguel County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   133
Save Our Canyons et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   350
Save Red Rock Canyon Community Development Corporation:
    Letter for the Record........................................    46
Sierra Club Southern Nevada Group:
    Letter for the Record........................................   356
Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter:
    Letter for the Record........................................   357
Silva, Jose:
    Letter for the Record........................................   353
Skokomish Tribe of Washington:
    Letter for the Record........................................   354
Snowmass Village, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................   135
Solar Energy International:
    Letter for the Record........................................   137
Southern Nevada Home Builders Association:
    Letter for the Record........................................    47
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters:
    Letter for the Record........................................    49
Stratton, Hon. Keven:
    Opening Statement............................................   205
    Written Testimony............................................   207
    Questions for the Record.....................................   278
Summit County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
    Letter for the Record........................................   140
Telluride, CO (Town of):
    Letter for the Record........................................   142
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership:
    Letter for the Record........................................   143
    Statement for the Record.....................................   369
Torres, Jocelyn:
    Opening Statement............................................   222
    Written Testimony............................................   224
Tripp, John:
    Letter for the Record........................................   145
Trout Unlimited:
    Letter for the Record in support of H.R. 823, dated April 3, 
      2019.......................................................   146
    Letter for the Record dated June 15, 2021....................   375
    Statement for the Record in support of S. 173................   376
    Statement for the Record in support of S. 182................   377
    Statement for the Record in support of S. 904................   378
(The) Trust for Public Land:
    Letter for the Record........................................   149
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
    Letter for the Record........................................    50
Vegas Chamber:
    Letter for the Record........................................    51
Wild Montana:
    Letter for the Record........................................   379
Wild Olympics Campaign:
    Letter for the Record........................................   381
    Appendix A: Wild Olympics Campaign Petition Signers..........   385
    Appendix B: Wild Olympics Campaign Endorsements..............   387
    Appendix C: ``What People Are Saying About Wild Olympics''...   396
    Appendix D: Tribal Support Letters...........................   399
(The) Wild Sheep Foundation and the Fraternity of the Desert 
  Bighorn:
    Letter for the Record........................................   433
(The) Wilderness Society:
    Letter for the Record dated March 1, 2021....................    52
    Letter for the Record dated June 16, 2021....................   408
    Statement for the Record regarding S. 567....................   414
Wilderness Watch:
    Letter for the Record........................................   422
Wilderness Watch et al.:
    Letter for the Record........................................   426
Wilderness Workshop:
    Letter for the Record........................................   151

----------
The text for each of the bills that were addressed in this hearing can 
be found on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
hearings/2021/6/public-lands-forests-
mining-subcommittee-legislative-hearing








 
                          PENDING LEGISLATION

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2021

                               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 3:02 p.m., in 
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Catherine 
Cortez Masto, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

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

    Senator Cortez Masto [presiding]. This meeting is called to 
order--this U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. 
This afternoon, the Subcommittee is meeting to receive 
testimony on 14 public land bills. The bills on this 
afternoon's agenda involve federal land management issues that 
affect states throughout the West, while a few others have 
national policy implications. Before we begin, I want to note 
that this is our first Subcommittee meeting this year and I am 
pleased to be working with the previous Chairman and now 
Ranking Member, Senator Lee.
    Issues involving federal land management are often the 
subject of very strongly held opinions, especially in the state 
where the land is located, and trying to resolve differences 
can be challenging, but Senator Lee and I have agreed that 
whether or not a bill has different views should not prevent us 
from holding hearings and giving Committee members an 
opportunity to better understand some of these issues. I 
understand that the sponsors of some of these bills have been 
working for literally years to get their legislation enacted. 
The Subcommittee has previously held hearings on nine of the 
bills on today's agenda, so many of these bills present 
familiar issues. Our goal with today's hearing is to get the 
Administration's input on these proposals and to provide an 
opportunity for any Committee members to ask any questions they 
might have and to update the hearing record for those bills 
that the Subcommittee has considered before.
    At this time, I would like to briefly talk about two of my 
bills that are being considered this afternoon, S. 567, the 
Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act and 
S. 609, the Ruby Mountains Protection Act. Both of these bills 
are very important to my home state of Nevada, both originated 
through local stakeholder driven efforts, and both enjoy a wide 
range of support from constituents from across the state.
    S. 567--the Southern Nevada Economic Development 
Conservation Act: Regarding this bill, it is commonly referred 
to as the Clark County Lands bill. Its development began at the 
county level over the course of several years, where it was 
developed with wide local stakeholder engagement. The Clark 
County Commission ultimately submitted their proposal to the 
Nevada Congressional Delegation back in 2019. I later received 
a discussion draft in January 2020, where we then received 
additional stakeholder feedback and introduced a bill on March 
3, 2021. The bill appreciates the bipartisan support of the 
entire Nevada Congressional Delegation, the Clark County 
Commission, the Nevada State Governors Office of Economic 
Development, local municipalities, local chambers of commerce, 
the Moapa Band of Paiutes, many local conservation 
organizations, including Save Red Rock and the Nevada 
Conservation League, the Nevada Housing Coalition, the Southern 
Nevada Water Authority, and numerous other organizations. 
Asking unanimous consent, I will submit the letters of support 
from these organizations into the hearing record.
    [Letters of support for S. 567 and the Southern Nevada Land 
Management Map displayed follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Senator Cortez Masto. Southern Nevada is unique to other 
states and localities in that its urban core is encircled by 
federal land that inherently creates impediments to 
coordinated, sustainable growth and development, local 
conservation efforts, and local planning to promote economic 
diversity. In fact, 90 percent of all the land in Clark County 
is administered by federal agencies. Federal legislative action 
is necessary to achieve goals in local and state economic 
diversification plans and complementary wildlife habitat 
conservation mitigation efforts, and to support local and state 
climate mitigation goals. As Southern Nevada rebuilds its post-
pandemic economy and anticipates adding another 820,000 
residents by 2060, like most other places in the country, it 
does so within the context that it requires an increased degree 
of federal partnership. That means we need to act quickly. At 
its core, S. 567 will facilitate more efficient land and water 
resource management, allowing for responsible and sustainable 
growth in Clark County, while at the same time complementing 
and fully allowing for the implementation of Clark County's 
sustainable growth and climate action plans.
    More specifically, this bill contains three large pillars. 
Number one, it includes a robust commitment to conservation, 
providing permanent conservation designation to over two 
million acres in Southern Nevada, including 41,000 acres to be 
held in trust for the Moapa Band of Paiutes, a 51,000-acre 
expansion for the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, 
350,000 acres specifically set aside for desert species habitat 
conservation, almost 340,000 acres of new wilderness in Clark 
County, and 1.3 million acres of wilderness designated 
specifically within the Desert National Wildlife Refuge. This 
commitment to conservation is equal in size to the entire State 
of Delaware, plus half of the State of Rhode Island. Number 
two, the bill includes two new provisions to allow for greater 
affordable housing opportunities in the county. And number 
three, the bill also expands the existing SNPLMA boundary as 
originally created under the Southern Nevada Public Land 
Management Act of 1998. The boundary expansion would further 
facilitate orderly and predictable growth over the long term 
through a joint county-BLM nomination process to facilitate 
expected population growth and economic diversification needs.
    The bill also includes measures to address changing 
environmental needs in the region and to preserve existing 
conservation advances. It also includes new mechanisms to 
support local priorities to improve regional sustainability, 
increase environmental resiliency, and support projects that 
mitigate against impacts from expected future population 
growth. Following today's hearing, I will continue to work with 
all interested stakeholders to further address remaining 
outstanding issues with respect to this legislation, including 
the relevant legislative interest resulting from an agreement 
on land management conflict between the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 
and the city of Las Vegas and other matters.
    And then finally, S. 609 is the Ruby Mountains Protection 
Act. The bill would prohibit oil and gas development within the 
Ruby Mountains area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest 
located in Elko and White Pine Counties in Nevada. This bill 
would also prohibit oil and gas development within the 
neighboring Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge, commonly 
referred to as the Ruby Marshes. The bill was created after the 
Forest Service received a request to buy from 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.
    This bill is necessary in order to permanently protect the 
Ruby Mountains from any future attempt to develop land for oil 
and gas purposes. Enacting the Ruby Mountains Protection Act 
will not only preserve these great public spaces and scenic 
landscapes enjoyed by many, but will preserve the recreational 
opportunities, outdoor economy, rare wildlife and plant life, 
and the local culture that these beloved mountains support.
    Now I would like to recognize my colleague, Senator Lee, 
for his opening statement, and then we will hear from any 
members of the Committee who want to make a brief statement and 
then turn to our Senators who have asked to speak on their 
bills as well.
    Senator Lee.

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

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony from 
the Forest Service, the Department of the Interior, and a 
number of other witnesses on 14 different bills.
    I am especially pleased that my good friend and my state 
legislator, Representative Keven Stratton of Utah--from the 
Utah House of Representatives--is here in attendance and will 
be testifying today. Representative Stratton is a real leader, 
not just in my state, but across the country on issues related 
to public lands--particularly those in the State of Utah. I 
feel very fortunate to have him here testifying in support of 
my bill, the MORE PILT Act. As you all know, PILT, the acronym 
standing for ``Payment in Lieu of Taxes,'' was passed into law 
in 1976, at a time when U.S. policy was shifting from disposal 
of federal lands to perpetual retention. While I believe that 
this shift represented a misstep and has denied many westerners 
access to--in some cases, ownership of--lands that they had 
previously been promised access to, I believe it is important 
to review this history to have Congress either correct course 
appropriately or compensate states for the necessary policy 
changes.
    While I will continue to advocate for Congress to correct 
course and return more land to the states, which are better-
equipped to manage and conserve our public lands for the 
benefit of future generations, in the meantime, we must make 
sure that Congress appropriately compensates states--
particularly states like mine, where most of the land is owned 
by the Federal Government--compensate them for the loss of 
revenue that they incur as a result of perpetual federal land 
ownership. Because these lands were no longer likely to enter 
into the portfolio of locally taxable lands, a federal 
commission recommended at the time that funds should be offered 
to local governments. Congress agreed and created the PILT 
program. In FY16, the PILT program covered 606.9 million acres, 
or about 94 percent of all federal land. The PILT program 
payments are determined by a complex and sometimes Byzantine 
labyrinth of a formula that includes a number of factors--the 
number of eligible acres in a county, the population of a 
county, the previous years' federal payments under similar 
programs, the existence of state laws that require payments 
from federal agencies to be passed through to other local 
governments, and the change in the consumer price index from 
the previous year.
    Unfortunately, these criteria do not always result in a 
fair and equitable PILT payment. Government agencies have 
identified that payments under PILT are far lower than what 
they would be due under a tax equivalency formulation. But by 
how much? Well, that is the question that the MORE PILT Act is 
designed to answer. It would direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to create a model or tool and then conduct a study and 
ultimately issue a report describing the true taxable value of 
land owned by the Federal Government--that is, what the value 
would be if it were owned by anyone other than the Federal 
Government, and then make recommendations on how PILT payments 
could be made to more accurately reflect the land's actual 
taxable value, which, after all, was the objective of the PILT 
program back when it was created in the first place.
    Additionally, I want to highlight two bills on the agenda 
that are also important to the people of Utah. S. 1686, the 
Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, and S. 1222, the 
Bonneville Shoreline Trail Advancement Act. These two bills 
deal with the issue of trail use in federal wilderness areas. 
An estimated 40 million Americans engage in mountain biking 
every year. Mountain biking is the second most popular trail 
activity in the United States. Utah's diverse terrain and 
scenery makes it a world-class mountain biking destination. 
Although mountain biking is allowed on most federal public 
lands in Utah and across the nation, it is restricted inside 
federally designated wilderness and federally managed 
wilderness study areas.
    The Wilderness Act of 1964, to be sure, prohibits motorized 
or mechanized transport within wilderness. The Forest Service's 
first regulations for wilderness, which were issued in 1966, 
banned only those devices powered by ``non-living power 
source,'' thus allowing for human-powered transport, including 
bicycles. It wasn't until the 1970's that the Forest Service 
changed its regulations to prohibit bicycles in wilderness. The 
Department of the Interior has a similar history. My bill, S. 
1686, would address this issue by amending the Wilderness Act 
to ensure that rules restricting mechanical transport do not 
include forms of human-powered, non-motorized travel. 
Additionally, the bill would grant federal land managers at the 
local level the authority to determine whether, where, and when 
to allow non-motorized travel over existing particular routes 
as opposed to the current model, which is just a blanket, flat-
out, regulatory prohibition, regardless of the suitability of 
the area for mountain biking.
    The Bonneville Shoreline Trail Advancement Act, S. 1222, 
for which I am an original sponsor, would advance a locally 
driven initiative to complete the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. 
The bill would adjust the boundary of wilderness to exclude 
segments of the trail along the Wasatch Range, where 85 percent 
of the population of the State of Utah resides. Utahns are 
asking Congress to act because they cherish trails and they 
want them open to more recreational uses, including mountain 
biking.
    These and many other pressing issues will be examined 
today. I look forward to hearing testimony from today's 
witnesses on legislation pending before the Senate.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    Next, we will recognize Committee members for their opening 
statements.
    Senator Heinrich.

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

    Senator Heinrich. Chairwoman Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 
Lee, thank you for including two bills important to New Mexico 
on today's agenda.
    The first bill, the Pecos Watershed Protection Act, will 
protect the Upper Pecos Watershed in Northern New Mexico from 
intensive mineral development that would threaten the Pecos 
River and its tributaries that are the lifeblood of these 
communities. This community was the victim of a toxic metal 
mine waste spill in the 1990's that contaminated irrigation 
water, killed fish for miles of the Pecos River, and took 
millions of dollars to clean up. The last thing this community 
wants is an international corporation threatening their water 
quality. The communities in the Pecos Watershed are fighting 
hard with every tool they can find to prevent new industrial 
activity and to protect their irreplaceable water resources 
that make their traditional way of life in this area possible. 
I am proud to join their efforts with this legislation because 
water is, hands down, the most valuable resource in my state.
    The second bill the Committee will hear about today would 
protect Cerro de la Olla in Taos County, New Mexico. Cerro de 
la Olla, with a summit of nearly 10,000 feet, is home to some 
of the best and most important elk habitat in Northern New 
Mexico. This legislation to permanently protect it is supported 
by a wide coalition of ranchers, hunters, business owners, 
veterans, as well as Taos Pueblo, the Taos County Commission, 
and the Town of Taos. The bill would also extend the boundary 
of the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument to encompass a 
particular parcel of land that the current owner would like to 
see added to the monument through the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. This boundary adjustment would ensure that 
the land would be included in the monument, as requested by the 
landowner. Protecting Cerro de la Olla and the entire Rio 
Grande del Norte has long been a priority for the Taos 
community and I am glad to see this bill moving forward today.
    Thanks again for holding this hearing. I look forward to 
hearing from all of our witnesses.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Hirono.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 
Member Lee. I would like to speak in support of S. 554, a bill 
that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to study lands in 
Hawaii that could be included in the National Forest System. 
The U.S. Forest Service currently manages more than 150 
national forests across the country, but none of them are in 
Hawaii. The Forest Service agency mission is to sustain the 
health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and 
grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. 
Some benefits from a national forest designation include: 
helping protect and improve forest areas, protecting natural 
resources, including unique vegetation types, increasing 
visitor use opportunities, and securing favorable water flows.
    Our state's forests could greatly benefit from a 
designation for the following reasons: Hawaii forests are home 
to vegetation types found nowhere else in the country. 
Approximately 90 percent of our native forests are found 
nowhere else in the world, and over 350 of our plant species 
are listed as threatened or endangered. The majority of our 
drinking water comes from groundwater, which is captured and 
filtered in our native forests. However, our native forests are 
currently under threat from invasive species, wildfire, and 
climate change. Educational opportunities created by a national 
forest designation could teach community members, children, and 
visitors about forest management in Hawaii as well as the 
importance of conservation and natural resource management to 
native Hawaiian culture.
    I also believe that a national forest designation in Hawaii 
could help the U.S. Forest Service and the United States in a 
number of ways. A designation in Hawaii could expand the 
diversity of lands represented in the National Forest System. 
It could also contribute to national conservation and natural 
resource management objectives, including this Administration's 
30 by 30 initiative and its work to mitigate climate change. 
The National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service--among 
other federal agencies--currently own and manage lands in 
Hawaii, but those agencies have different missions than the 
Forest Service. It is in Hawaii's interest to determine if some 
of its lands could become a unit of the National Forest System.
    My bill is not complex. It simply requires the Forest 
Service to coordinate with the Hawaii Department of Land and 
Natural Resources and consult with the Hawaii Department of 
Agriculture, as well as other local interested entities, in 
looking at land that could become a unit of the National Forest 
System. The study would then inform Congress on the results and 
any recommendations or conclusions made by the Secretary of 
Agriculture on establishing a national forest in Hawaii. As 
Hawaii's unique ecosystems face continual threats, we need as 
many tools as possible to protect our resources. This study 
could be one more tool to inform decisions on how to best 
manage our resources for current and future generations' needs.
    My colleague, Congressman Ed Case, introduced an identical 
version of this is the U.S. House, co-sponsored by Hawaii's 
other Member of Congress, Representative Kahele. That bill 
passed the House last month. S. 554 is co-sponsored by my 
Senate colleague, Senator Schatz. The entire Hawaii Delegation 
is supportive of this bill, as is the State Department of Land 
and Natural Resources. I ask for your support in advancing it 
here on the Senate side. Thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Hickenlooper.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member Lee. I appreciate a moment to talk about Senate bill 
173, and when I was a young Governor, still green in judgment 
in 2011-2012, I heard stories about the young Senator, Michael 
Bennet, who was assembling community members from all walks of 
life: ranchers and farmers and hikers and hunters and anglers, 
and listening to them as he began putting together what you see 
before yourselves today--Senate bill 173. I think one of the 
things that is truly distinguishing about this is that that 
broad cross section included Democratic county commissioners 
and Republican county commissioners and they made every effort 
to hear the issues. There were significant, substantial changes 
made to the program as it went through the ten years of long 
work, but what they made was something that is deeply valued by 
the community that made it. 
I think the rest of the state is rightfully proud of it.
    Right before I came down here, I was on a call with about a 
couple dozen people who--many of them have been working on it 
for almost eight or ten years, and I cannot remember the last 
time I was on a Zoom where there was that level of pride. So 
rather than tell you all about it, I will pass by. I think 
Senator Bennet would be next to speak, right?
    Senator Cortez Masto. Actually, it would be Senator Murray.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Oh, Senator Murray. Oh, there is 
Senator Murray. I apologize. I got carried away. Well, I will 
yield my time to Senator Murray and then to Senator Bennet.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Murray.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Murray. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Cortez Masto. 
I really appreciate the opportunity to come before your 
Committee today to present a really important priority for 
Washington State and I want to acknowledge Senator Cantwell, 
who I know will join you shortly. She has been a stalwart 
champion for our environment and our wild places and I want to 
publicly thank her for all she does for Washington State and 
our nation.
    This year, I was very proud to reintroduce the Wild 
Olympics Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This is a 
bicameral bill that will permanently protect more than 126,500 
acres of the Olympic National Forest as wilderness, and 19 
rivers and their major tributaries--a total of 464 river miles 
as wild and scenic rivers. This proposal is the product of 
years of collaboration with local stakeholders, and a shared 
commitment to preserve the precious natural features and 
resources of our prized Olympic Peninsula.
    I encourage the members of this Committee to come to 
Washington State and visit. You will see our pristine forests 
and rivers for yourself and you will understand why this bill 
matters. This legislation will set aside the first new 
wilderness on the Olympic National Forest in nearly three 
decades and the first-ever protected wild and scenic rivers on 
the Olympic Peninsula. Our bill was designed through extensive 
community input from just about everyone you could think of who 
lives on the Olympic Peninsula. I especially want to 
acknowledge Representative Kilmer, who has been a steadfast 
partner in this effort.
    Since I first introduced this legislation in 2012, we have 
built a far-ranging and very broad-based coalition of non-
partisan support that encompasses more than 800 major local 
endorsers. It is almost unheard of to find this kind of 
overwhelming support for a bill in Congress, but in Washington 
State, we know we do not have to choose between preserving our 
natural spaces and growing our economy. They go hand in hand. 
That is why the local Olympic Peninsula and Hood Canal area 
tribes, businesses, shellfish growers, sportsmen, faith 
leaders, and conservation groups are all firmly behind this 
legislation. In fact, more than 12,000 local residents signed 
petitions in support of this legislation and about 19,000 
people live in Port Angeles, which is the largest city in 
Clallam County, so 12,000 petitions is not insignificant.
    Washington State wants to see this bill finally passed into 
law, and no two ways about it, we are unified in support. As I 
mentioned, this legislation has been carefully crafted through 
extensive community input to get to where we are today. This 
proposal will have no impact on existing timber jobs and will 
permanently protect sources of clean drinking water for local 
communities while also protecting and expanding world-class 
outdoor recreation opportunities like hiking, camping, boating, 
hunting, and fishing without closing any roads. In particular, 
this bill would protect critical salmon habitat, which is 
especially important to our local tribes. My bill expressly 
acknowledges the fundamental interests and expertise of all our 
treaty tribes in the restoration of fish habitat. If we want to 
save the salmon in the Pacific Northwest, we have to protect 
what habitat remains while we restore previously degraded 
habitat conditions. My Wild Olympics legislation would 
permanently protect some of the healthiest, intact salmon 
habitat left on the peninsula while allowing for tribes and 
their partners to continue important habitat restoration work. 
Saving our salmon is a critical priority for me and so many 
others. And if we want to get it done, passing Wild Olympics is 
an important piece of this puzzle.
    These national treasures, the breathtaking views, the 
stunning scenery, are truly the heart of the Olympic Peninsula, 
its economy, its community, and its heritage. It is a source of 
pride for our country as a whole. Wild Olympics has brought 
Washington State families and communities from all walks of 
life together to protect beautiful outdoor spaces that we all 
love. I am thrilled to be here today to be their voice in 
urging that we get this bill to President Biden's desk without 
any further delay.
    Chairwoman Cortez Masto, thank you so much for allowing me 
to speak today.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    All right, now Senator Bennet.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. BENNET, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Bennet. I will take you up on your invitation and 
come visit. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairwoman 
Cortez Masto, for holding this hearing, and Ranking Member Lee, 
and for giving me the chance to say a few words about the 
Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act, or what we call in 
my office and my state, the CORE Act. I also want to thank 
Senator Hickenlooper for his extraordinary leadership on the 
bill. As our former Governor, he knows Colorado's public lands 
better than almost anyone.
    The most important thing to know about the CORE Act is that 
it was not written in Washington, DC. It was written by 
Coloradans, on the ground, in conference rooms, on kitchen 
tables and at trailheads across our state, as John said, over 
the past decade. The CORE Act combines four proposals that, 
taken together, would protect over 400,000 acres of public land 
in Colorado. This includes new wilderness, recreation and 
conservation areas, and lasting protections for iconic 
landscapes, like the Thompson Divide, where Teddy Roosevelt 
came to hunt in 1905, just months after establishing the U.S. 
Forest Service. This bill also provides a new historic 
designation for Camp Hale, a site where the 10th Mountain 
Division trained to become America's first military climbers 
and skiers. When these soldiers deployed to Europe from Camp 
Hale, their specialized training and experience in the Colorado 
High Country helped them rout Nazi forces in the mountains of 
Northern Italy, clearing a path to victory in the Second World 
War. After the war, this greatest generation, the 10th Mountain 
Veterans, returned home to Colorado and launched the outdoor 
industry we know and love today. Protecting Camp Hale would not 
only honor this incredible history and legacy, but also the 
veterans who continue to find peace and solace in our outdoors.
    The 10th Mountain Division Veterans support our bill, and 
they are not alone. The CORE Act is broadly supported by 
Coloradans because they are the ones who wrote it. Every 
provision in this bill reflects thoughtful collaboration 
between county commissioners, businesses, ranchers, sportsmen, 
and conservationists who spent day after day working together 
to iron out their differences. They brokered compromises, they 
adjusted boundaries, and modified designations until the CORE 
Act reflected their shared priorities. The result is a balanced 
piece of legislation that enjoys the full support of seven 
counties and the twelve towns and cities in the State of 
Colorado that are affected by this. It also has the support 
from countless outdoor businesses, hunters and anglers, 
mountain bikers, and the conservation community.
    And for Senator Hickenlooper, I wanted to emphasize that 
the bill is supported by New Belgium Brewery and 35 other craft 
breweries and distilleries from across the state. They join 
many other businesses and communities in Colorado that rely on 
the watersheds and public lands protected in this bill. If the 
Committee would allow it, I would ask that these support 
letters be entered into the record.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
    Senator Bennet. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    [Letters of support for S. 173 follow:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Bennet. Let me close by saying the CORE Act is a 
testament to the hard work and commitment of people in my state 
who care deeply about protecting our public land. They know how 
much public lands matter to our economy, our heritage, and our 
way of life. This bill is their best effort to strengthen and 
sustain that legacy for the next generation of Americans and 
Coloradans, and I am grateful to the Committee for giving their 
hard work a fair hearing today. I look forward to working with 
all of you to pass this priority legislation for Colorado.
    Thank you so much for having me today.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Cramer.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN CRAMER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

    Senator Cramer. Thank you, Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking 
Member Lee, and members of the Committee, for holding this 
hearing and for giving me this opportunity to testify in 
support of S. 1076, the Revive Economic Growth and Reclaim 
Orphaned Wells Act, or the REGROW Act. In April, Senator Lujan 
and I introduced the REGROW Act, which would deal with the 
longstanding issue of orphaned wells on state, federal, and 
tribal lands. Across the country, the Interstate Oil and Gas 
Compact Commission has documented 56,000 orphaned oil and gas 
wells, which are abandoned wells with no party responsible for 
cleanup, at least none identified. These wells, which typically 
pre-date state regulatory actions aimed at preventing this 
problem, are at risk of leaking methane, contaminating 
groundwater, and creating safety risks while also inhibiting 
productivity on agricultural land.
    As that problem lingered, global energy oversupply 
resulting from decreased demand due to the pandemic caused 
major job losses in the oil and gas industry last year. In 
energy producing states like North Dakota, New Mexico, 
Pennsylvania, and Texas, highly skilled energy workers were 
laid off as production slowed. That combination of orphaned 
wells that need to be plugged and unemployed workers who need a 
job is what brings us to the REGROW Act. This bold proposal is 
to put nearly $4.7 billion toward plugging every documented 
orphaned well in the country. According to the Bipartisan 
Policy Center, our bill would support nearly 10,000 jobs per 
year and contribute roughly $1.3 billion to the annual GDP. In 
the end, it would have the dual benefit of putting highly 
skilled workers back on the job while reducing emissions, 
remediating environmental harm, and putting land back into 
productivity.
    It is a ``win-win''--I might say ``win-win-win-win-win.'' 
And I appreciate Senators Heinrich, Hoeven, Casey, and Cornyn 
for their support of the bill as well. The language in the bill 
actually builds on North Dakota's leadership on this issue. 
After Congress passed the CARES Act last year, North Dakota 
dedicated $66 million of its state funding to plug abandoned 
wells. I applaud my state's foresight and the real work it has 
already accomplished on the ground plugging these wells and 
remediating the land. These efforts have provided an example 
that the Federal Government can emulate, and I welcome any 
opportunity to make Washington work more like North Dakota 
rather than the other way around.
    Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, I have been in 
Congress long enough to recognize how rare it is for a proposal 
to be balanced enough to garner the support of the regulatory, 
industrial, and environmental communities. But that is exactly 
what the REGROW Act has done, and I would challenge anyone to 
find another proposal that is endorsed by the Environmental 
Defense Fund, the Independent Petroleum Association, the 
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, the National 
Wildlife Federation, the American Petroleum Institute, the 
Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, and the American Exploration and 
Production Council. Further, on May 25th, a bipartisan group of 
Governors representing Oklahoma, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West 
Virginia, and Wyoming wrote to Chairman Manchin and Ranking 
Member Barrasso, asking for the REGROW Act to be passed. It is 
not often groups and states spanning the ideological spectrum 
from left to right and everything in between come together for 
a common cause like this.
    Clearly, we have a good thing going, and that is because we 
have kept the main thing the main thing. Rather than inserting 
things into the measure that would divide us, we are focused on 
getting people back to work and cleaning up the mess. I would 
be remiss if I did not thank Senator Lujan, EDF, IPAA, and the 
IOGCC for their insight and their cooperation in drafting the 
bill. It is greatly appreciated, and the bill before you today 
reflects the good work that they all put into it. I also want 
to thank Representatives Fletcher and Armstrong for introducing 
the House companion bill, and I would like to note that both 
the House and Senate versions of the REGROW Act are the only 
proposals with bipartisan support. Colleagues, that should not 
go unnoticed as we seek to build consensus and deliver results 
for the American people.
    Thank you again for holding the hearing. I look forward to 
the feedback on how we can improve the bill and work toward its 
passage. Thank you.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Romney.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MITT ROMNEY, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Romney. Chairman Cortez Masto and Ranking Member 
Lee, it is good to be with you. I will be brief.
    You have heard of the Great Salt Lake. You have probably 
seen it. The Great Salt Lake is actually one tenth the size of 
a body of water that used to be there. Some 20,000 years ago, 
there was a lake there called Lake Bonneville. It stretched 
from Southern Utah all the way to the Idaho border. It was some 
20,000 square miles in scale, about the size of Lake Michigan, 
and as you fly into Salt Lake or Provo or those communities and 
you look at the mountains, you can often see a shelf, if you 
will, where the shoreline of the old Lake Bonneville used to 
exist. There are trails that various communities have made 
along that shoreline because it is a flat-like shelf, and you 
can walk along it.
    Unfortunately, for the people who like to walk along the 
shoreline, now and then it crosses wilderness areas. Some 326 
acres of wilderness area are crossed by the original Bonneville 
shoreline. And so the legislation would trade 326 acres of 
wilderness for 326 acres of Forest Service land--which used to 
be a Boy Scout camp, by the way--such that the trails could be 
connected and there would be a 280-mile long Bonneville 
Shoreline Trail that would stretch from Utah all the way up 
into Idaho and allow people for generation after generation to 
walk this trail along the side of the mountains and see nothing 
but the beauty of the landscape. It would be a treasure for the 
people of our country and a legacy for future generations.
    I hope this Committee will see fit to bring forward and to 
the Floor this proposal to make that swap, if you will, of 
wilderness area land for Forest Service land so that this trail 
can be completed and generations can enjoy it, and I appreciate 
that Ranking Member Lee is also a sponsor of this legislation.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    So at this time, here is what we are going to do. We have 
three votes that started. One of them started at 3:15. We are 
going to get started with the panel discussion and then we are 
going to take a recess--probably about ten minutes, probably 
get to two witnesses, and then take a recess. Senators Lee and 
I and the other Senators can go vote, then we will come back, 
finish the panel and then get into questions.
    So at this time, I would ask those of you who are 
testifying in person to please come forward to the table.
    And so, providing the Administration's testimonies, let me 
just introduce who is here.
    It is Nada Culver, the Deputy Director of Policy and 
Programs at the Bureau of Land Management. Thank you for 
joining us.
    Chris French, who is the Deputy Chief for the Forest 
Service, welcome.
    We also have testifying, as you have heard, Representative 
Keven Stratton of the Utah House of Representatives on Senate 
bill 1008, the PILT bill that Senator Lee just spoke about. 
Welcome, thank you for joining us.
    Marci Henson is joining us. The Director of the Clark 
County, Nevada Department of Environment and Sustainability, 
who is testifying virtually today from Las Vegas on Senate bill 
567, the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation 
Act. Marci, welcome.
    And we have Jocelyn Torres, the Senior Field Director for 
the Conservation Lands Foundation, who is also testifying on S. 
567 and will speak in support of S. 609, the Ruby Mountains 
Protection Act. Jocelyn, welcome as well. It is great to see 
both of you here.
    And then, we also have joining us virtually, Pat Pitney. 
She is the Interim President of the University of Alaska, and 
is testifying virtually from Fairbanks, Alaska on S. 1128, the 
University of Alaska bill. Pat, welcome as well.
    I would ask each of you to limit your oral statement to no 
more than five minutes. After everyone on the panel has given 
their statement, we will turn to a round of questions from 
Committee members. So let's begin with Ms. Culver's statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF NADA WOLFF CULVER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 
         POLICY AND PROGRAMS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

    Ms. Culver. Chairwoman Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee, 
and members of the Subcommittee, I am Nada Wolff Culver, the 
BLM's Deputy Director for Policy and Programs. I am pleased to 
be here today to provide testimony on eight bills on today's 
agenda of interest to the BLM. Several of these bills include 
provisions that align with important Administration priorities 
concerning conservation and increasing equitable access to 
recreation on our nation's public lands. We appreciate the work 
of the sponsors and the Subcommittee on the measures and look 
forward to continuing to work with you on them.
    S. 173, the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act, 
provides direction for the future management of certain federal 
lands in Southwestern Colorado, including the designation of 
the McKenna Peak Wilderness, withdrawal of the Thompson Divide, 
and establishment of a coal mine methane leasing program. S. 
173 aligns with the Administration's climate and conservation 
goals, and the BLM supports the bill. We would like to work 
with the sponsor on a number of modifications to aid the bill's 
implementation.
    S. 177, the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness Establishment Act, 
designates approximately 13,000 acres within the Rio Grande del 
Norte National Monument in New Mexico as the Cerra de la Olla 
Wilderness. The bill would provide the highest level of 
protection for these remarkable lands while continuing to 
provide recreational opportunities as well as allowing for 
certain traditional uses. We support the bill.
    S. 182, the Pecos Watershed Protection Act, withdraws 
approximately 167,000 acres of federal land located near Pecos, 
New Mexico, including about 1,600 acres of BLM-managed land. We 
support the bill, as we understand the value of safeguarding 
the Pecos Watershed, protecting it now and for future 
generations, and addressing historic environmental and economic 
injustices.
    S. 567, the Southern Nevada Economic Development and 
Conservation Act, designates 1.5 million acres of new 
wilderness and approximately 350,000 acres of BLM-managed lands 
in nine new special management areas, conveys approximately 
41,000 acres of BLM and Bureau of Reclamation lands to be held 
in trust, creates four new off-highway vehicle recreation 
areas, and makes several amendments to the Southern Nevada 
Public Land Management Act. The Department supports the goals 
of the bill, as they align with Administration priorities. We 
look forward to continuing to work with the sponsor on a number 
of modifications.
    S. 904, the Modernizing Access to our Public Land Act, 
directs agencies to collaborate on the collection, sharing, and 
publication of public lands, recreation, and travel management 
data. We believe the bill has the potential to address some 
longstanding challenges surrounding public access and data 
management, and look forward to working with the sponsor and 
the Subcommittee on some technical issues.
    S. 1076, the Revive Economic Growth and Reclaim Orphaned 
Wells Act, aims to address idled and orphaned oil and gas wells 
on federal, tribal, state, and private lands. Cleaning up these 
abandoned and often hazardous sites that are contaminating the 
air and water and causing ongoing public health and 
environmental damage is an Administration priority reflected in 
both the President's FY22 budget request and the American Jobs 
Plan. We strongly support the efforts of S. 1076.
    S. 1128, the University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation Act, 
requires the Department to establish a program to identify and 
convey available State of Alaska selected lands to the 
University of Alaska for use in supporting the university 
system. The Department would be responsible for surveying the 
land identified for potential conveyance. The Department 
supports the goals of the bill and looks forward to continuing 
to work with the sponsor on this measure.
    S. 1686, the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, 
would allow mechanical travel in designated wilderness areas. 
The Department strongly opposes this bill as it would undermine 
the principles of the Wilderness Act, which were intended to 
preserve certain lands in a natural condition, protect 
watersheds and wildlife, and provide opportunities for outdoor 
recreation, scientific research, and enjoying the serenity and 
solitude these lands provide. Only a small portion of the 
public land in the United States is designated as wilderness, 
while there are many opportunities across our federal lands to 
use mechanically assisted travel.
    Finally, the Department also submitted statements for the 
record on S. 1008, concerning the Payment in Lieu of Taxes 
program and on S. 609, the Ruby Mountains Protection Act.
    The BLM looks forward to continuing to work with the 
Committee and the Congress on the important public land issues 
addressed in these bills. Thank you again for the opportunity 
to be here today. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Culver follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Mr. French.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 
               FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE

    Mr. French. Thank you, Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 
Lee, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today. It has been an 
unprecedented year. The Coronavirus pandemic brought human loss 
and suffering to an untold number of American families, job 
losses, challenges with social distancing, separation of loved 
ones, telework, virtual schooling--all impacted our society. We 
also saw unprecedented milestones in our national forests, 
including one of the most devastating fire seasons on record, 
with too many lives lost, more than 10 million acres burned, 
and more than 18,000 structures gone. Our greatest challenge as 
an agency right now is to address the wildfire crisis at the 
scale of the problem and to bring long-term resilience to our 
firefighters, our communities, and our forests.
    During this time, we also saw record-setting use and 
visitation to our national forests. This past year, we saw 168 
million users, a new record and an increase of nearly 18 
million people. Recreation in national forests contributed 
nearly $13.5 billion to the nation's Gross Domestic Product and 
helped sustain an estimated 161,000 jobs. And while we have 
much more to do, the majority of national forest recreation 
opportunities do not require fees, and they deliver equitable 
experiences that reach a wide array of Americans. Presently, 
our resources to provide recreation service delivery do not 
match the demand. Bills such as the MAPLand Act, which 
recognizes the need to fund, coordinate, and provide equitable 
information, spotlight the need to connect Americans with their 
public lands, and for us to provide capacity to deliver this 
critical service.
    National forest visitation saw the most significant 
increases to our dispersed recreation areas and wilderness 
areas. We know wilderness areas provide restorative experiences 
and natural connections that people needed during the pandemic. 
The Forest Service manages more wilderness units than any other 
federal agency across 39 states and Puerto Rico. Protected and 
conserved natural areas, such as wilderness, are becoming 
increasingly important to protect and connect landscapes to 
allow species and systems to adapt to a changing climate. The 
more than 36 million acres of wilderness that the Forest 
Service manages constitute nearly 20 percent of our National 
Forest System. Many of the bills under consideration today will 
expand, further protect, or otherwise impact our wilderness 
areas, and I look forward to discussing how they can contribute 
to the effective management of these valuable assets.
    These bills include our support for the Colorado Outdoor 
Recreation and Economy Act, the Wild Olympics Wilderness and 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Bonneville Shoreline Trail 
Advancement Act. It is also why we are not supporting the 
Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Act. While we do promote 
expanding recreational access on National Forest System lands 
in a manner that preserves the ecological, cultural, and 
historical integrity of the landscapes and supports social and 
economic needs of adjacent communities, we are unable to 
support this bill because it increases management challenges 
associated with preserving wilderness character, alters the 
consistent interpretation and implementation of the Wilderness 
Act's prohibition of mechanical transport, and diverts critical 
agency capacity away from developing other areas that have 
widespread support for mountain biking and other uses 
envisioned by this bill.
    In regard to other bills under consideration, the 
Administration supports the actions that have broad public 
support and that create long-term protections on National 
Forest System lands. This includes support for the Ruby 
Mountains Protection Act, the Pecos Watershed Protection Act, 
and S. 554, to study the potential of a national forest in 
Hawaii.
    It is also important that we restore and take necessary 
remediation to lands in the National Forest System that have 
been significantly impacted by past and historic use. For that 
reason, we support the Gilt Edge Mine Conveyance Act and the 
Revive Economic Growth and Reclaim Orphaned Wells Act. The Gilt 
Edge Conveyance Act is an efficient and thoughtful solution to 
address the Superfund site. The REGROW Act acknowledges the 
challenges we have to address of the more than 11,000 orphaned 
wells that we have inherited in our National Forest System in 
areas where the Federal Government does not control subsurface 
rights, but are required to manage the surface protections.
    So again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
you today. Congressional actions that help us connect and 
provide better service to our national forests and those that 
protect, conserve, and remediate the naturalness of our 
National Forest System are of great help and of focus for us.
    That concludes my remarks on these bills, and I look 
forward to answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    As I said earlier, for the benefit of new members, we are 
going to do a short recess so we can go vote on the two votes 
that are before us and then we will gavel back in after the 
second vote.
    Thank you everyone, and we will be in a short recess.
    [RECESS.]
    Senator Cortez Masto. We are going to call the meeting back 
to order. We are going to continue with our panel of witnesses.
    Next is Representative Keven Stratton of the Utah House of 
Representatives. Welcome.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVEN STRATTON, 
             MEMBER, UTAH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    Mr. Stratton. Thank you, Madam Chair Cortez Masto. I am so 
grateful to be introduced by Ranking Member Lee and to be able 
to join this distinguished Committee today. Thank you for the 
invitation to be here. I am grateful to be able to testify and 
respond to the invitation to comment on S. 1008, or the MORE 
PILT Act, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to 
develop a modeling tool, conduct a study, and issue reports 
relating to the tax equivalent amounts of payments under the 
PILT program, or known formally as Payment in Lieu of Taxes.
    I would like to start by saying how grateful I am to live 
and work and raise a family in this great land of America. I 
appreciated, Madam Chair, your comments, the emotions, and the 
concerns that go along with these issues that we are discussing 
today related to the use of the resources we have, and I would 
just offer that I would join you and all in the gratitude that 
I feel, the rich blessings of divine providence for this 
beautiful, beautiful land that we call home.
    My stewardship in the Utah House of Representatives in the 
Utah legislature includes serving as the Chair of the House 
Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Committee as 
well as House Chair of the Federalism Commission. We are 
grateful for and cherish both the state and federally managed 
public lands within the State of Utah. Utah has statutorily 
memorialized its commitment to be a premier public land state. 
Over the last 10 years, we have passed and implemented a 
comprehensive statutory framework to care for the public lands 
within the State of Utah. This framework is a result of over 
100 bills and resolutions that have been passed, and includes a 
state wilderness act, state monument act, the Utah Public Lands 
Management Act, a separate and distinct resource management 
plan for each of our 29 counties, and an overall statewide 
resource management plan.
    With approximately 65 percent of the land in Utah being 
non-taxable and federally managed, second in percentage only to 
the great State of Nevada, with approximately 80 percent non-
taxable federally managed lands, a concern that cannot be 
overstated is the dramatic impact of PILT on western 
communities and their citizens. Utah appreciates every dollar 
of PILT money received, yet the harsh reality is that the 
current PILT is a miniscule fraction of the fair property tax 
equivalency value resulting in exponentially depressive impacts 
on funding for education and essential government services, 
including first responder services, the construction of roads, 
schools and other infrastructure, search and rescue, and 
additional critical needs.
    In 1921, U.S. Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland 
stated to the New York Bar Association: ``To give a man his 
life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him all that 
makes his life worth living. To give him his liberty but take 
from him the property, which is the fruit and badge of his 
liberty, is to still leave him a slave.'' Current PILT payments 
deny the states and their citizens the full benefit of the 
property within their borders. Thus, the treatment of the 
citizens in the State of Utah and surrounding states is not 
equal to the treatment of citizens that live in states east of 
Colorado.
    Guided by ``A Report to the President and Congress by the 
Public Law Review Commission'' completed in June 1970, the 
State of Utah in 2018 passed two unanimous bipartisan pieces of 
legislation to commence a study to determine the fair taxable 
value of all federally managed public lands in the state. The 
focus of this Utah study, completed in the spring of 2020, is 
consistent with Congressional legislative intent underlying 
federal PILT and FLPMA legislation, and in like manner, the 
intent of S. 1008 being considered by the Committee today. The 
Congressional Research Service stated that ``the Payments in 
Lieu of Taxes (PILT) ACT was passed in October 1976, thus 
promoting the Public Land Law Review Commission's 
recommendation of nearly a decade earlier'' and that ``PILT 
held the promise of both stabilizing federal payments to 
counties and improving prospects for tax equivalency.'' 
However, since the inception of the program, PILT payments to 
the counties have been only a small fraction of what local 
governments would otherwise generate.
    With this, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
answer any questions that the Committee may have. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stratton follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Next we have joining us Marci Henson, the Director of the 
Clark County, Nevada Department of Environment and 
Sustainability. Welcome, Marci. Thank you for joining us.

OPENING STATEMENT OF MARCI HENSON, DIRECTOR, CLARK COUNTY (NV), 
          DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

    Ms. Henson. Thank you. Subcommittee Chairman Cortez Masto, 
Ranking Member Lee, and distinguished members of the 
Subcommittee, I appreciate the invitation today to discuss the 
critical need for S. 567. My name is Marci Henson, and I am the 
Director of the Clark County Department of Environment and 
Sustainability. I am here today representing the entire Board 
of County Commissioners. I oversee the county's regional 
environmental programs, and we are dedicated to protecting our 
air and climate, conserving habitat, and preserving access to 
public lands while ensuring economic opportunity for all. As 
such, we are proud to have worked with Senator Cortez Masto and 
the entire Nevada Congressional Delegation to develop S. 567.
    Simply put, S. 567 is a blueprint to manage the future 
growth of Clark County and protect public land for conservation 
and recreation. We have consistently been among the nation's 
fastest growing counties, and population projections estimate 
we will add another 820,000 residents and grow to 3.2 million 
by 2060. This esteemed growth over the past three decades has 
required the Nevada Delegation, formally led by Senator Harry 
Reid, to proactively enact bipartisan public lands conservation 
bills, similar to S. 567, starting with the Southern Nevada 
Public Lands Management Act (SNPLMA). Clark County is the 
nation's 13th largest, consisting of 5.2 million acres, 89 
percent of which are administered by a federal land management 
agency or the Department of Defense. The majority of land, over 
2.6 million acres, is administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM). Due to this federal ownership, our options 
for planning and development are very constrained and require 
constant coordination with federal agencies.
    The BLM has not updated its Las Vegas Valley Resource 
Management Plan (RMP) since 1998, the year SNPLMA was enacted. 
However, our conservation, local land management needs, and 
plans to accommodate future growth now surpass actions that can 
solely be implemented through an updated RMP. Available land in 
Clark County consists of undeveloped private land parcels and 
BLM parcels mostly in the Las Vegas Valley disposal boundary, 
identified in SNPLMA. The current disposal boundary can only 
accommodate another five to seven years of average annual 
growth, not including private parcels. This land scarcity 
drives up the cost of the remaining vacant acres and limits the 
types of projects that can be developed. These constraints 
hamper our ability to fully realize goals for affordable 
housing, economic diversification, and full employment. A local 
study found that we are on the verge of a land shortage that 
will have severe negative economic impacts on Southern Nevada. 
The report estimates the economic damage from a land shortage 
would result in reduced economic output for the region of up to 
$69.5 billion, and we could lose up to 329,100 jobs.
    S. 567 provides the ground rules for growth that will allow 
economic diversification, and includes a modest 30,633-acre net 
expansion of the SNPLMA disposal boundary. This kind of 
strategic expansion is necessary to ensure Clark County's 
future is healthy, livable, prosperous, and climate-resilient. 
In conjunction with 
S. 567, we have undertaken two planning initiatives, ``All-In 
Clark County'' and ``Transform Clark County.'' All-In is 
focused on climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 
and community resilience. Transform Clark County is focused on 
sustainable development, multi-modal and zero emission 
transportation, and clean energy. These plans will ensure the 
County's ability to grow responsibly while meeting 
sustainability and climate goals. In fact, Section 208 of this 
bill provides critical funding to implement these efforts.
    While S. 567 provides a blueprint for managed growth, this 
legislation also includes other equally important planning 
priorities that represent a holistic approach to the 
development and preservation of Clark County. In total, the 
bill designates more than two million acres of federally owned 
land for habitat conservation, outdoor recreation, and 
preservation and is the largest conservation bill in Nevada's 
history. The conservation expansion in this bill, as you heard 
earlier--and we are very proud of it--is equal to the size of 
the entire State of Delaware and half of Rhode Island.
    Finally, S. 567 expedites and facilitates the development 
of more affordable housing in Clark County. Today, there is a 
shortage of 59,370 affordable homes for extremely low-income 
households. If we include very low-income households, the 
shortage grows to more than 78,000 homes. The local BLM office 
is only able to process one affordable housing project a year 
because of its current resource constraints and regulatory 
requirements. S. 567 provides the BLM and local governments 
with more options to create affordable housing using the 
parcels in the SNPLMA disposal boundary. It streamlines the 
public notice and acquisition process associated with 
affordable housing parcels.
    Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to 
testify in front of the Committee. We respectfully urge your 
support for the bill.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Henson follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Next, we have Jocelyn Torres, the Senior Field Director for 
the Conservation Lands Foundation. Welcome.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF JOCELYN TORRES, SENIOR FIELD DIRECTOR, 
                 CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION

    Ms. Torres. Thank you. Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 
Lee, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this 
opportunity to testify today in support of S. 567, the Southern 
Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act, and S. 609, 
the Ruby Mountains Protection Act. My name, as you stated, is 
Jocelyn Torres, and I am the Senior Field Director for the 
Conservation Lands Foundation. Our mission is to protect and 
restore and expand the public lands vital for the health of our 
planet and communities. Our mission is something that is very 
near and dear to my heart, having grown up in Las Vegas, 
Nevada, the ancestral lands of the Southern Paiute people. You 
can imagine that there were not a ton of recreational 
activities for those of us under 21, that is, with the 
exception of our public lands.
    I spent countless hours hiking, camping, and soaking in the 
sun with my family and friends and annually made the journey 
north to the Ruby Mountains for a family hunting trip. For 
years, Nevada's public lands have taken care of me, my loved 
ones, and my community. I am here today to ask you to preserve 
our most valuable resource by enhancing protections for places 
such as Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, the Desert 
National Wildlife Refuge, and the Ruby Mountains, because when 
we take care of our public lands, they take care of us.
    Nowhere is that connection more important and possible than 
in Nevada. Our public lands present our best chance to address 
climate change, our biodiversity crisis, and invest in our 
local communities and economies. The Southern Nevada Economic 
Development and Conservation Act is the embodiment of this 
connection. It would be the largest conservation bill in Nevada 
history, help address the climate crisis by opening up funding 
opportunities for local sustainability and climate projects, 
and invest in the local economy by addressing the needs of a 
rapidly growing region in a thoughtful manner. In addition, the 
legislation would restore lands to the Moapa band of Paiutes.
    This historic piece of legislation would conserve and 
enhance some of Southern Nevada's most beloved places at a time 
when the demand for public land access is at an all-time high 
and the need for enhanced conservation is at a critical point. 
One of those beloved places is Red Rock Canyon National 
Conservation Area, which is expected to see more than four 
million visitors this year. This bill would expand Red Rock 
Canyon by more than 50,000 acres, allowing for more 
opportunities to hike and bike and more protected areas for the 
endangered Mohave Desert Tortoise. Often referred to as 
Southern Nevada's crown jewel, Red Rock Canyon was Nevada's 
first national conservation area, originally protected for its 
unique and nationally important geological, ecological, and 
cultural values. Another of those beloved places is the Desert 
National Wildlife Refuge, the largest national wildlife refuge 
outside of Alaska. The area is the wildest part of the Silver 
State, containing one of Nevada's best wildlife habitats, and 
one of the largest populations of desert bighorn sheep in the 
state. The refuge has been utilized for thousands of years by 
Southern Paiute people, settlers, and today's Southern Nevada 
residents and visitors alike. Originally proposed as wilderness 
in 1974 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is past time 
that we conserve its priceless cultural, recreational, and 
ecological values.
    Conserving land requires a community commitment. Local 
communities connected to the land are the ones who fight for 
its value day in and day out. When local communities heard 
about the possibility of Nevada's treasured Ruby Mountains 
becoming victim to speculative and inappropriate oil and gas 
leasing, we jumped into action and so did Senator Cortez Masto. 
Thanks to these collective efforts, we have the Ruby Mountains 
Protection Act before you today, a bill that would prohibit oil 
and gas development in the home of Nevada's largest mule deer 
herd and in the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. The Ruby 
Mountains region is one of the most important landscapes in 
Nevada for fish, wildlife, and recreation. Conserving this 
habitat corridor is crucial to the health and resiliency of the 
deer herd, migratory birds, and local communities alike. 
Nevada's federal and local elected officials, tribal 
governments, and local communities have come together to put 
the proposals before you today. The work to conserve our 
landscapes and the quality of life has been important, and I 
know this Subcommittee understands the urgency and importance 
of action in ensuring we uphold these values.
    Lastly, the Conservation Lands Foundation would also like 
to 
express our support for three other bills under consideration 
today: S. 173, the CORE Act, sponsored by Senators Bennet and 
Hickenlooper of Colorado; S. 177, the Cerro de la Olla 
Wilderness Establishment Act, sponsored by Senators Heinrich 
and Lujan; and S. 182, the Pecos Watershed Protection Act, also 
sponsored by Senators Heinrich and Lujan. These three bills, 
like the Southern Nevada Lands Act and the Ruby Mountains 
Protection Act, honor the commitments to strengthen our bonds 
with the lands we know and love.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share this testimony.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Torres follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. Next, we have Pat Pitney, the Interim 
President of the University of Alaska. Welcome, Pat.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF PAT PITNEY, 
            INTERIM PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

    Ms. Pitney. Thank you so much for this opportunity, and 
good afternoon Senator Cortez Masto and Ranking Member Lee, 
Senator Murkowski, and other members of the Subcommittee. My 
name is Pat Pitney and I am Interim President of the University 
of Alaska and I am here on behalf of the University of Alaska's 
Board of Regents, students, faculty, and staff.
    I speak in strong support for Senate bill 1128, the 
University of Alaska Fiscal Foundation Act. The University of 
Alaska is a 
land-, sea-, and space-grant system that was established in 
1917. The university system is the only public higher education 
system in Alaska, and comprises three separately accredited 
universities: the University of Alaska Fairbanks, University of 
Alaska Anchorage, and the University of Alaska Southeast. There 
are over 22,000 students both full and part time and 500 unique 
programs, ranging from certificates and endorsements all the 
way through doctoral degrees. The University of Alaska, 
although a land-grant institution, is land poor due to 
historical anomalies that prevented it from receiving the full 
benefits of lands that Congress and the Alaska Territorial 
Legislature intended for it to receive.
    Despite being the geographically largest state in the 
United States, all but one state, Delaware, has received more 
federal lands for their universities than did the University of 
Alaska. Several attempts through the Alaska legislature and 
various legal proceedings have not yielded a path forward to 
resolve this 62-year-old dilemma. This legislation provides a 
remedy by creating a voluntary program to identify lands from 
the State of Alaska's selection for the Alaska Statehood Act. 
The university, working with the Department of the Interior and 
the State of Alaska, would identify candidate lands for 
conveyance. Governor Michael Dunleavy's administration has been 
instrumental in crafting this legislation, and the state is 
supportive of the university securing lands that would 
contribute to long-term financial stability, with the State of 
Alaska House and Senate recently passing a joint resolution.
    The University of Alaska, like many other public 
institutions of higher education, has experienced a severe 
decline in state financial support. This has been compounded by 
the COVID-19 impacts that we anticipate will last at least 
another six to eight months. As Alaska's sole provider of 
public higher education, the University of Alaska has a unique 
role among its peers. We have the three separately accredited 
universities with 13 community campuses across the state that 
serve from the vocational/technical mission all the way through 
doctoral education. The university serves the entire state and 
is physically dispersed across our 1,300 miles, roughly the 
distance between the U.S. Capitol and Wichita, Kansas. Despite 
the enormous geographic and financial challenges, the 
University of Alaska is and always will be a key to Alaska's 
economic recovery and to the state's overall economic 
prosperity. The University of Alaska Fairbanks, the University 
of Alaska's research university, is a main contributor to 
Arctic and climate change research for our nation and 
internationally.
    This bill, as the title implies, will lay the groundwork 
for a fiscal foundation which the university can use to 
continue to grow its mission, inspiring learning and advancing 
and disseminating knowledge through teaching, research, and 
public service, emphasizing the North and its diverse peoples.
    Thank you so much for your consideration of this 
legislation. I look forward to any questions you might have. 
Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Pitney follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Now we will go into rounds of questions from the Senators, 
and I will begin. I am going to start with the Senate 567 bill, 
the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act.
    Ms. Henson, let me start with you. Thank you again for 
joining me. I mentioned in my opening statement how Southern 
Nevada is unique to other states and cities in that our 
metropolitan area is fully surrounded by federal land, and that 
for local entities to plan for future growth, conservation 
efforts, or economic diversification, it takes considerable 
collaboration with federal agencies and often requires 
Congressional action. Can you elaborate on why this bill is 
necessary? What would happen in Clark County without this 
legislation, especially as the county is projected to grow by 
800,000 new residents by the year 2060?
    Ms. Henson. Well, Clark County would expect, if this bill 
were not to pass, that growth and development would become much 
more unpredictable and uncoordinated. We could expect to see 
land prices spike. Our housing crisis would be exacerbated. Our 
economy would hit another wall, and lands that should have been 
protected would have been, you know, left exposed and further 
degraded.
    And so we need this bill because our land use and planning 
goals here in Southern Nevada surpass what can even be done in 
an updated resource management plan, and they require federal 
legislation. Things like an expansion to the Southern Nevada 
Public Lands Management Act disposal boundary require federal 
legislation. Wilderness designations that we seek here locally 
require federal legislation. The provisions for affordable 
housing also require federal legislation, and there are several 
other examples.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    And Ms. Torres, how important is this particular bill, the 
Clark County bill, overall, toward making conservation 
advancements?
    Ms. Torres. Thank you. Yes, I think we all know we are 
facing a climate and biodiversity crisis and that our region is 
obviously still recovering from the devastating effects of the 
pandemic, and we see this bill as providing a balanced approach 
to addressing the economic and conservation needs of the area. 
As we know, it will permanently protect close to two million 
acres of public lands in Southern Nevada, while addressing the 
climate and the local economy. And these protections would 
create the connectivity that our sensitive species need really 
to adapt to the changing climate.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    And Ms. Culver, thank you for the support initially in your 
opening statements for Senate bill 567. How does this bill 
support the BLM's multiple-use mission to manage the area's 
federal lands, especially in efforts to invest in necessary 
projects like renewable energy projects or critical minerals?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    This bill supports both the multiple-use mandate of the BLM 
and many of the Administration's priorities in regard to 
enhancing our tribal trust relationships, supporting healthy 
communities and economies, access to outdoor recreation, 
conservation, and addressing wildlife habitat. These areas can 
also be protected and conserved in a manner consistent with 
ongoing renewable energy development and responsible critical 
minerals development.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    And let me jump to the Ruby Mountains bill very quickly 
here. I have a few minutes remaining.
    Ms. Torres, regarding this bill, your organization strongly 
opposed the expression of interest to establish oil and gas 
leasing in the Ruby Mountains. That was filed with the BLM back 
in 2017. Again, why is it important to protect the Ruby 
Mountains, and what will passage of this legislation mean 
toward the preservation of the Ruby Mountains?
    Ms. Torres. As I mentioned, my family goes up there hunting 
every year, and part of that is because it is home to the 
largest mule deer herd in the state. The area is a critical 
habitat corridor for many wildlife species, you know, aside 
from the mule deer. And really, I think passing this 
legislation would allow community members to focus on enjoying 
stewarding the landscape instead of constantly fighting 
inappropriate and low-potential oil and gas leasing.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    And then, Mr. French, can you confirm that the Forest 
Service does, in fact, support the Ruby Mountains Protection 
Act to permanently remove the Ruby Mountains from oil and gas 
leasing activity?
    Mr. French. We do. We know that the area contains extensive 
cultural, scenic, and ecological values. Our own analysis has 
shown that the potential for development is minimal, and we 
have strong local public support, our local leadership has 
support, we have Administration support.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Representative Stratton, I will to start with you. Tell me, 
how much does the State of Utah receive currently under the 
PILT program?
    Mr. Stratton. It does vary from year to year, but the most 
recent year was $41 million.
    Senator Lee. And what are PILT funds used for once they are 
received by units of local government?
    Mr. Stratton. Critical use--critical services and uses and 
education.
    Senator Lee. The same kinds of things they might use them 
for if they were able to collect taxes. What types of criteria 
did the modeling tool created under the direction of Utah's 
legislature take into account when determining the value of 
federal lands within the state?
    Mr. Stratton. The power of the modeling tool--it took into 
account 65 different key indicators that you would look at as 
you assess the valuation of land according to the highest and 
best standards in appraising property--such things as zoning, 
location, flood plains, topography--very, very comprehensive.
    Senator Lee. And what was the total amount--the total 
acreage of federal land that you looked at that was located 
within the city boundaries?
    Mr. Stratton. We found that our cities, much like the 
challenges we are seeing in Southern Nevada, we found 217,000 
acres inside our 249 cities' boundaries, very similar to the 
previous.
    Senator Lee. 217,000 acres?
    Mr. Stratton. Thousand, yes.
    Senator Lee. Of federal land located within city 
boundaries?
    Mr. Stratton. Yes.
    Senator Lee. What is the percentage, roughly, of the total 
federal land mass within the State of Utah that that equates 
to?
    Mr. Stratton. 0.0066--less than 1 percent--a fraction of 1 
percent.
    Senator Lee. A tiny sum by comparison and yet it is a large 
amount. Now, how much was the PILT payment that was received 
for those areas where there are federal inholdings within a 
city boundary?
    Mr. Stratton. $505,000.
    Senator Lee. $505,000, statewide, for that category of 
land?
    Mr. Stratton. Correct.
    Senator Lee. And what did your study determine to be the 
equivalent property tax value of those raw acres?
    Mr. Stratton. $131 million.
    Senator Lee. Wow, okay. So, $500,000 as compared to $131 
million. That is a very big difference. And what did your study 
determine to be the fair market value of those lands, just the 
federal inholdings within city boundaries in Utah?
    Mr. Stratton. Within the cities, as they are, in their 
current state, $21 billion.
    Senator Lee. 21----
    Mr. Stratton. Billion.
    Senator Lee. Billion, with a ``B?''
    Mr. Stratton. Correct.
    Senator Lee. And that is just those lands?
    Mr. Stratton. Correct.
    Senator Lee. This category that we are talking about?
    Mr. Stratton. That 0.0066.
    Senator Lee. 0.0066.
    Now, what is the amount of federal land that you determined 
to fall within one mile of city boundaries?
    Mr. Stratton. Within one mile the value of that land was--
excuse me, the value of the land in fair tax equivalent 
property values is $358 million, and we are receiving $1.4 
million in PILT payments currently. So it is over 300 times 
difference in actual value.
    Senator Lee. Okay, and so did it also determine the 
property tax equivalent of those raw acres within one mile? And 
the fair market value of those lands?
    Mr. Stratton. Yes, the fair market value of the lands was 
$56 billion.
    Senator Lee. With a ``B?''
    Mr. Stratton. With a ``B,'' and the equivalent tax would be 
$358 million and the current PILT payment is $1.4 million and 
that, again, is a small fraction, less than two percent of the 
total public lands within our state.
    Senator Lee. Okay, so if you take that sum, you are talking 
about $56 billion plus $22 billion. This is just that portion 
of the federal land in Utah that is either within a city 
boundary or within one mile of city limits?
    Mr. Stratton. Correct.
    Senator Lee. What is the lowest taxable property tax rate 
in the State of Utah?
    Mr. Stratton. In Utah, the lowest taxable rate is 
unimproved recreational use.
    Senator Lee. And is that unimproved recreational use used 
to tax many acres in Utah? Is that fairly commonly applied?
    Mr. Stratton. It is commonly applied. There are many non-
agrarian uses for which that would be the applicable tax.
    Senator Lee. So at that rate, that lowest rate, what does 
the equivalent property tax amount for all federal lands in 
Utah come to at the moment?
    Mr. Stratton. It is a multiple of five times of the $41 
million, so with the lowest tax rate it would be close to $200 
million.
    Senator Lee. Close to $200 million. How does that compare 
to Utah's current PILT payment?
    Mr. Stratton. Well, currently we are getting $41 million, 
but please understand, Senator, that within city boundaries, 
there is property that has commercial and also high-density 
residential around it that would be significantly greater than 
the 200, but the lowest, as is, would be 200, yes.
    Senator Lee. As low as these are, PILT payments, I would 
imagine, even as stunningly low as they are compared to their 
actual value, would they become more important or less 
important as the current Administration moves to slow or 
complicate oil and gas development on federal land?
    Mr. Stratton. Five years ago, Senator, we conducted a 
study, and what it would mean if we took on the policy of 
former Secretary and candidate Clinton--the narrative to keep 
everything in the ground--in other words, similar to the 30 by 
30 of the current Administration's focus. And to Utah, that 
would mean the loss of 93,000 jobs and $11 billion to our state 
GDP.
    Senator Lee. Correspondingly, what impact would it have on 
Utah's schools if we were to increase PILT funds in PILT 
payments?
    Mr. Stratton. Thank you for the question. Currently, Utah 
schools, per-pupil, have the lowest amount spent per-pupil in 
any of the 50 states. In order for Utah to come up to the 
next--the 49th instead of 50th in that--it would take an 
additional $392 million according to a study from 2009. That 
gap has widened and we are currently there. We praise our 
teachers and education system many times. They score in the top 
10 percent of the nation, but as to funding, we are continually 
reminded of the challenge as a legislative body in dealing with 
funding education when 65 percent of our land is non-taxable.
    Senator Lee. Was this same type of analysis that you 
conducted for Utah, was it conducted for any other states?
    Mr. Stratton. It hasn't been yet, but Idaho, in this last 
legislative session, passed resolutions and appropriations to 
begin the study there.
    Senator Lee. This received bipartisan support in Utah's 
legislature, right?
    Mr. Stratton. Unanimous, bipartisan.
    Senator Lee. And now, in Ms. Culver's testimony, she says 
that the program outlined by the MORE PILT Act will be, ``too 
challenging to develop.'' In your experience, was this program 
too big of a challenge?
    Mr. Stratton. What I would say, as I understand the 
comment--because as we looked at it in two years, when we began 
this, we really didn't understand the capacity and strength of 
technology today. And so we got into it and I would say we have 
nailed out--we have shown that a comprehensive analysis is 
certainly available, given the technological advancements we 
have today, and absolutely feasible--absolutely feasible with a 
surprisingly, even shockingly de minimis cost to doing so.
    Senator Lee [presiding]. Thank you, Representative 
Stratton.
    Senator Risch.
    Senator Risch. Well, thank you, and thanks to the Chairman 
and Ranking Member for holding this hearing. We do not spend 
enough time on the public lands issues here in the U.S. Senate, 
primarily because the people that live east of the Mississippi 
River do not understand the magnitude of that issue when it 
comes to our states. My state is about two-thirds owned by the 
Federal Government. Nevada is even more than that, and my 
colleagues from Montana and Utah are going to have similar 
numbers to ours and it causes issues. First of all, we value, 
obviously, the ability to use our public lands, and these 
public lands are being used by people not just from Idaho, but 
from all over the country.
    And one of the things that is unique to some areas, not all 
areas, but frequently with public lands, is it is a 
checkerboard of land ownership. And in Idaho, we have a 
requirement that people know where they are standing--whose 
land they are standing on. It is a strict liability issue and 
it requires people to know. As a result of that, when, 
obviously, particularly people from out of state are very 
confused when you start talking about Forest Service, BLM, 
Bureau of Reclamation, BOR--they do not even know what the 
letters stand for sometimes, but it is a federal agency of some 
kind that owns the land.
    So in any event, to better help folks do that, mapping is 
absolutely critical, and these maps are, many times, hard to 
come by. We can all get the USGS maps. They are very, very good 
when it comes to telling us what the topography is and that 
sort of thing, but for land ownership they are not.
    The purpose of Senate bill 904, which is a bipartisan bill 
sponsored by myself and Senator King, is to require that we get 
digitalized and standardized outdoor recreation data that 
people can easily access when they are going out on the public 
lands, and it will give hunters and fishermen and hikers and 
all kinds of recreationists and other public land users the 
ability to see who owns what land, and maps are absolutely 
critical in that regard.
    This is a good piece of legislation. I think it is going to 
be very helpful to anyone who uses the public lands, 
particularly in the western states, and I look forward to 
getting a vote on this in the not-too-distant future. But I 
think it is a bill that will be supported very heavily by all 
of the western Senators on a bipartisan basis. And so, with 
that, I will yield back my time to Senator Cantwell, who I 
believe is in charge.
    Are you in charge, Senator? We do not know who is in 
charge, which is not unusual here.
    Senator Cantwell [presiding]. Senator Daines is next.
    Senator Risch. Thank you very much.
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Senator Cantwell and Acting 
Chairman Risch.
    Senator Risch. I do not think I was. I do know how to do 
it.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Daines. Before I begin, I want to ask to be able to 
submit for the record a letter of support for the MAPLand Act 
from the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
    Senator Risch. That was the one I was talking about.
    Senator Daines. I need a ``without objection.''
    Senator Cantwell. Without objection.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    [The letter referred to follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Daines. This past year, we experienced firsthand 
the importance of our outdoors and our public lands in Montana 
and across our country, perhaps more than ever. The outdoor 
recreation industry supports 71,000 jobs in Montana and helps 
attract new businesses, tourists, and residents. Our treasured 
public lands truly make that possible. Hunting, fishing, and 
recreating on our public lands has been part of our family now 
for generations. If you come to my office, you will see a big 
old-school topo map of the Beartooths, with little red pins on 
everywhere I have been there, and it has literally blanketed 
about every corner of the Beartooths' high mountain lakes with 
my fly rod and an elk hair caddis.
    But technology has changed since then, and has 
revolutionized the ways in which sportsmen and women and 
recreationists access and navigate our lands. Public lands 
agencies need to modernize and catch up to the digital age by 
digitizing and making mapping and other public lands 
information publicly and readily accessible. That is why I am 
proud to be an original co-sponsor of the MAPLand Act. This 
bipartisan bill will facilitate public access, raise awareness 
for outdoor opportunities, protect private property rights, and 
ensure responsible and safe recreation and hunting.
    Mr. French and Ms. Culver, Montana is expecting to see 
record levels of visitors to our lands this summer, many of 
which will be visiting the West for the very first time. How 
will making maps, access points, and recreation opportunities 
more easily accessible ensure we have more responsible as well 
as safe access?
    Ms. Culver, we will have you start.
    Ms. Culver. Thank you, Senator Daines, for the question.
    Making public information available and digitized regarding 
access, including easements, will both make accessing public 
lands easier and ensure that people are accessing it in a way 
that is legal. So this bill and the efforts it could fund 
builds on work we are already doing with the Forest Service and 
other agencies to create data standards and make information 
available. But this specifically would help to support 
recreational access and information.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    Mr. French.
    Mr. French. Yes, I agree. I think the other thing to think 
about here is that because there would be a universal approach, 
it will become easier, I think, for anyone to look at any of 
our jurisdictions and understand where they have access and 
where they don't, and it creates a more equitable approach to 
accessing public lands.
    Senator Daines. As you know, some areas in Montana have 
checkerboard land ownership patterns. Checkerboards are 
typically a section, 640 acres. How will the MAPLand Act help 
to alleviate some of the private property and access issues 
associated with these ownership dynamics?
    Mr. French, why don't you start?
    Mr. French. Well, it brings resources to bear in an area 
that we are far behind on. So we are really supportive of the 
Act because it prioritizes our efforts in digitizing those 
places where we have easements and things like that. And I 
think that can only help provide a better understanding of 
where they can access public lands.
    Senator Daines. Ms. Culver.
    Ms. Culver. I would agree. As you probably know, we are 
working on a pilot project with the BLM in Montana and the 
Dakotas to digitize recreational access, including easements, 
but again, the support of this bill would make it easier for us 
to continue doing that. We have a lot of easements that address 
public lands, and they are still on paper. So we have to review 
them individually and then digitize them.
    Senator Daines. Great. Thank you.
    Forest management legislation is not under consideration at 
this hearing, but the issue is front of mind for many Montanans 
today, as we are already experiencing wildfires across the 
state. Sadly, if you were to google Red Lodge Montana fire in 
the last 24 hours--look at the images. They are heartbreaking. 
We have another big fire now that has broken out between 
Townsend and White Sulphur Springs and Deep Creek, and there is 
another in the Pryors burning here, as we have had high 
temperatures and drought.
    Chief Christiansen has called for a paradigm shift in how 
we manage our forests, a call that was echoed by both Chairman 
Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso in a letter to the 
Administration just yesterday. I am grateful for these calls to 
action and couldn't agree more on the need to increase the 
scale and the scope of forest management.
    Mr. French, what does a paradigm shift in forest management 
mean to you, and what steps is the agency taking right now to 
bring about this change?
    Mr. French. A paradigm shift means increasing the amount of 
work we are doing to reduce wildland fire risk to our 
communities in the right places. It is going to take two to 
four times the amount of work we are doing right now if we are 
going to get ahead of this in the next ten years. The resources 
have to be there, both on the federal side and the community 
side. It is an all-in, all-hands approach to really address 
doing the right acres at the right scale and the right places.
    Senator Daines. Thank you. I am out of time.
    Senator Cortez Masto [presiding]. Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much 
for you and Senator Lee holding this important hearing. I want 
to thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for testifying on Senate 
bill 455, the Wild Olympics Wilderness and Wild and Scenic 
River Act. This proposal has been around for some time, so I 
really commend her and my colleague, Representative Kilmer and 
previous Congressman Dicks, for their works and efforts on this 
for many years.
    As this map shows, our Olympic Peninsula in the area in 
brown is what we are talking about. It would designate over 
126,000 acres of Olympic National Forest as wilderness as well 
as protect 464 miles of river on the Olympic Peninsula by 
designating it as wild and scenic.
    [The map introduced by Senator Cantwell follows:]

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Senator Cantwell. Together, this bill preserves some of 
Washington's most pristine lands and our last growth timber 
stands and critical salmon habitat. Protecting these special 
places also ensures Washingtonians can continue to get out and 
do what they love best, getting in the outdoors and seeing 
these amazing surroundings. This has been supported by our 
Public Lands Commissioner and by Governor Inslee and by many, 
many people that represent different individual organizations.
    Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record this 
list of 833 Washington State individuals and organizations who 
endorse this legislation.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
    [List of supporters of S. 455 follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Cantwell. The reason people are excited about the 
Wild Olympics is not only because it ensures we have more 
pristine public lands for our local communities and visitors to 
enjoy, but it is also a big gateway in economic activity. 
According to the Outdoor Industry Association, access to public 
lands creates 131,000 jobs and adds $2.3 billion to our local 
and state economy. The Olympic National Park is already one of 
America's top-visited national parks. We welcome over three 
million travelers that come to the northwest corner of the 
Continental 48 to explore the vast, unspoiled terrain. This 
bill would add to the tourism and outdoor recreational 
opportunities. And so I look forward to us passing, finally, 
this legislation.
    I would say, Mr. French, I am glad to see that you are 
supportive of S. 455. What benefits would these wild and scenic 
designations coupled with habitat improvements and 
restoration--you have mentioned that kind of restoration work--
what would that do to provide for water quality and fishery 
habitat in this area?
    Mr. French. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
    You know, any of these areas where we are able to provide 
broad-scale protections for natural areas are critically 
important for ensuring long-term water quality and protection. 
So in this case, you talked about the unique ecological 
function of the area, especially the salmon habitat. Our local 
leaders show and see that giving protections to those areas 
will ensure that long-term outcome for those species.
    Senator Cantwell. And what about the increased economic 
activities or the boost to the recreational economy, 
particularly on those wild and scenic rivers?
    Mr. French. Yes, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, 
this year we saw unprecedented numbers of visitors to the 
national forests, an increase of almost 18 million in just one 
year. The majority of those, actually, were going toward 
undeveloped, natural, and wilderness areas. And so we recognize 
the importance that people place in connections to wilderness 
areas and seeking them out for a variety of reasons. It is one 
of the areas where we are just seeing increased demand. And so 
that will relate to increased local economic benefits to the 
economy.
    Senator Cantwell. Well, I think it is interesting, I mean, 
I like all the Northwest outdoor activities, but it is 
interesting that Olympic, in a more remote part of our state, 
gets more visitors and economic activity than our other 
national parks, which are in more urban areas that you would 
think would draw more people. So I think it speaks to the point 
that you just made, that people want that extra wilderness 
experience. They want the extra uniqueness. And obviously, the 
Olympic Peninsula provides that in a very big way.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 
all those of you here today. I want to give a special welcome 
and a note of appreciation to Pat Pitney, the University of 
Alaska President. I thank you for your willingness to share 
comments and your advocacy on this, President Pitney. Thank you 
for all of that.
    Before I begin other questions, Ms. Culver, the last time 
that we had an opportunity to talk, it was about the 
Department's efforts to expeditiously review the now-paused 
public land orders. I know the Department is going through 
consultation, but I need to share with you that one message I 
am hearing from constituents back home is that they are just 
frustrated. They are frustrated that they are having to prepare 
for another consultation on an issue that they have already 
spoken on. They feel that the rushed timelines of the first two 
consultations--I know that COVID has disrupted some of the 
things that we are dealing with on consultations, but I would 
hope that there is larger tribal participation in the next 
meetings if what we are really looking for is meaningful 
consultation, and I think we really are.
    Speaking to the matter of the legislation that I have 
introduced, President Pitney, thank you for giving the details. 
I think it is important for folks to recognize that the 
University of Alaska has yet to receive the full entitlement 
intended by Congress. To this day, it has one of the smallest 
land endowments of every other land grant university in every 
other state--just 110,000 acres. This legislation would resolve 
the university's unfulfilled land grant and help it generate 
revenues to support its students and its operations. I think 
you have outlined very well, President Pitney, the need that we 
have in the state for long-term support and stability for our 
university system. It is really my hope that the state and the 
Federal Government can come together to fulfill the 
university's full land entitlement. Finally resolving this is 
what we need to do by transferring these--up to 360,000 acres 
of federal land. We recognize that the total acreage of the 
transferred land is going to count against Alaska's statehood 
entitlement, so there are no additional lands that are 
transferred for it. It comes at no net loss for the Federal 
Government, except beyond the amounts authorized in the 
Statehood Act.
    This is something that we feel very, very strongly--the 
time is here. We need to move on this. So a question to you, 
President Pitney--you have spoken to how this fulfillment of 
the land allotment can contribute to the long-term financial 
stability of the university. Perhaps if you can give, very 
quickly, some quick examples of how--really to the individual 
young person in Alaska, the student there--it provides that 
benefit, but also, why it has taken so long? You know, we have 
been a state now for 60 years, and just the recognition that we 
have not yet received this full land entitlement.
    Ms. Pitney. Well, thank you so much for those questions.
    In terms of what this funding allows us to do currently 
with the small land grant we do have, the lion's share of it is 
used for what we call the University of Alaska Scholars 
Program, and it supports the top ten percent out of every high 
school class in the state to come to the university. When it 
started, it was a full scholarship, and today it is a four-year 
scholarship, but obviously does not cover the full tuition. 
That is the lion's share.
    The other piece is bolstering our cooperative extension, 
you know, kind of the original land grant purposes, but also 
supporting our Arctic research. We are very instrumental in 
Arctic research and climate change research, as we should be. 
We are in the Arctic state of the nation, and positioning the 
United States in the Arctic conversation is very important to 
us. Supporting the research that continues our strong position 
in Arctic and climate change is supportive of the national 
goals as well.
    In terms of why it took so long, it wasn't out of lack of 
interest or trying or intent, but as it turns out, at the state 
level, there were attempts and actually legislation passed, but 
due to dedication clauses, it requires this legislation where 
it is a federal program to support that land transfer from the 
state to the university. And you know, a lot of it was caught 
up where we were not a state when most of the land grant bills 
were passed, but there was clear intent during the statehood 
process that the university would receive its lands. And this 
would resolve the amount that was intended by the Alaska 
Statehood Act, and it just requires this voluntary program set 
up federally for the land to be conveyed to the university 
versus to the state and then to the university.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, I can recall----
    Ms. Pitney. It is actually simple.
    Senator Murkowski. It is simple, and we thought we had it 
addressed once through the legislative process, but as you 
point out, we had to start over there. I appreciate the effort 
that you are leading in the university system, working with the 
state, and working with the delegation.
    I want to ask you, Ms. Culver, because I appreciate what 
you have stated in your testimony with regard to S. 1128. You 
say that you support the goals, which we appreciate. You have 
asked for some further clarifying language, but I am a little 
concerned with one statement that you have. You indicate that 
``We have found that exchanges are best approached after 
entitlements are completed and land ownership patterns are 
settled.'' So I understand that, and I clearly believe that it 
is much easier that way, but I just want to remind that the 
Bureau of Land Management, under your direction now, has issued 
a two-year pause on the public land orders that would have made 
progress on the state's land entitlements.
    So on the one hand, you are saying you want the university 
to wait until we get all these other entitlements and 
conveyances taken care of, but you have paused that. You have 
paused that now for two years. So I would ask you to clarify 
what you mean by that statement and provide an estimate to this 
Committee, to me, and to President Pitney, on how long we can 
expect to continue to wait for the BLM to complete Alaska's 
statehood entitlement, because if you are going to say we 
cannot get to the university until we do the state entitlement, 
but you put a pause on that for two years, how do we ever get 
there from here?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you for the question, Senator.
    You know, I would be happy to get back to you with more 
specifics on timing. We are working to resolve the public land 
order issues and we are also interested in moving forward with 
your bill and addressing the conveyance opportunities for the 
university.
    Senator Murkowski. But you see my concern? Your text in 
your statement is very, very clear, and I do not disagree with 
it, but it is very, very hard, if not impossible, to achieve it 
if we know we are looking at a two-year pause. For us, that 
means that not only this bill cannot move forward, but anything 
else that might be in the queue. So I would appreciate greater 
clarification on that, if we may.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Senator Hickenlooper.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.
    I have followed from afar as I have been dotting in and out 
of other meetings, but I appreciate all of your time and all of 
your service.
    Mr. French, I want to reiterate what Senator Bennet said, 
Title I of the CORE Act designates 28,000 acres surrounding 
Camp Hale, and that was the site where the Army's 10th Mountain 
Division famously trained during World War II--designates it as 
a National Historic Landscape--I think one of the first of its 
kind, if not the first--and it provides for ongoing 
environmental remediation and restoration of the site as well 
as historic preservation and certainly honors the sacrifice of 
those World War II veterans. Some of those veterans, by the 
way, upon their return home helped create the outdoor 
recreation industry, the skiing which you see in Arapahoe Basin 
or Breckenridge or even nearby Aspen.
    Can you talk a little bit about the Forest Service, how it 
would move forward under this new designation, and how the 
Forest Service would work to support that existing recreation 
right around Camp Hale, not necessarily in the resort, but in 
that area?
    Mr. French. You bet. First, we are excited by the 
opportunities that it can provide us and I do believe it would 
be the first designation of its kind. I think our approach 
would be--while really focusing on maintaining the historic 
preservation of the area--reaching out with the existing 
outfitter-guides that are there, reaching out with existing 
users, and working with the public in general on our management 
plan to ensure that the recreation uses that are there can 
continue, can expand in areas, and also collaborate with us on 
the overall management of the area. We are working with some 
veterans' groups right now. We know we need to expand that even 
further.
    And so we are actually excited by the approach that we can 
take on this.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great, we share that, and I 
appreciate your enthusiasm and your team's support.
    Ms. Culver, obviously, I am very proud and excited to have 
partnered with Senator Bennet on this. He did all the hard work 
on the CORE Act, and I think for the all the reasons cited 
already, the bill delivers critical protections for Colorado's 
outdoors, at the same time helping to ensure that our 
multibillion-dollar-a-year outdoor recreation industry will 
remain vibrant for years to come. I think the CORE Act, in a 
very real way, is a model of how political engagement should be 
conducted, and it represents almost a decade of thoughtful 
engagement with ranchers and hunters and outdoor recreationists 
and anglers as well as the county commissioners and so many 
other local officials.
    Can you speak briefly about the importance of local support 
for this bill in terms of driving the Administration to support 
this legislation which, in fact, is included in its second ever 
Statement of Administration Policy, back in February?
    Ms. Culver. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper.
    The way that the on-the-ground work was conducted over the 
many years for the CORE Act has certainly helped illuminate the 
wide-ranging support for the bill, from recreation to 
businesses to local governments, all supporting the measures in 
their counties and often in the broader region, and that 
certainly has not been lost on the federal land management 
agencies. And we would agree that seeing this kind of broad 
support and input into the legislation has been very helpful.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great, I appreciate it, and 
certainly, it was a team effort. When we list all of those 
people who worked on putting this together, there are a number 
of federal officials at many levels that rolled up their 
sleeves and came to meeting after meeting and really helped 
make it happen. Again, I do not have to tell any of you this.
    Mr. French, back to you again. Colorado's Interstate 70, 
the main east-west connection across our state, it bores under 
the Continental Divide at what we call Eisenhower Tunnel, which 
had the unintended consequence of creating, really, the only 
high-elevation wildlife migration corridor over I-70. Also, on 
State Highway Route 9, to the north between Silverthorne and 
Kremmling, we put in a number of overpasses and underpasses for 
wildlife there with great success. You know, animal-vehicle 
collisions went from 65 per year down to three. A remarkably 
successful investment.
    Title I of the CORE Act would protect the corridor as part 
of Porcupine Gulch Wildlife Conservation Area. That is one of 
many aspects of the bill that sportsmen and wildlife associates 
and advocates are very excited about. Can you comment on the 
importance of wildlife migration corridors and the 
Administration's approach to protecting them?
    Mr. French. Sure. When you look at the series, the broad 
series of migration corridors that stretch all the way from 
Mexico up through Canada--public lands--and our approach in 
ensuring that there is connectivity and there are similar 
suitable management approaches that allow for those migration 
corridors is an area of great importance to the Administration. 
We will continue to work with our partners at the Department of 
the Interior and with states. I know a number of state fish and 
wildlife and game and fish departments are all focused on 
ensuring that these broad-scale corridors remain in place and 
that they have the type of protections they need, as you are 
seeing with the Eisenhower Tunnel area.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you 
all. I yield back to the Chair.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    So that finishes the first round of questioning. We are 
going to go into a second round, but the good news for the 
witnesses is that there are probably only a few of us asking 
questions, and I am going to start.
    Let me start with the Southern Nevada Economic Development 
and Conservation Act again, S. 567. Ms. Henson, let me ask you 
this. How will the county utilize this bill to restrain 
unchecked growth and ensure that growth does not negatively 
impact the sensitive desert landscape?
    Ms. Henson. Clark County will use S. 567 as a template and 
a roadmap for our growth. It will allow us to have a level of 
certainty and predictability that we can then invest in long-
range planning for things like water conservation, cleaner air, 
and clean renewable energy as well. And so along with that, the 
preservation of this additional two million acres of federal 
lands will also assure us of where development absolutely 
cannot go in the future. And so it is really going to help us 
set the sideboards for planning in the region for the next 50 
years.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you for that, because I know 
there are 25,000 acres within the existing SNPLMA boundary that 
still remain. Will all of these acres be used for future 
development?
    Ms. Henson. No. We know that not all of the acres within 
the remaining boundary will be used, and that is a phenomenon 
that happens in all urbanized areas, despite local government's 
attempts to try to incentivize and make use of all available 
acres. For a variety of reasons, they do not get developed, and 
we end up with vacant lands. That can happen sometimes because 
of geographic restraint--it might be too steep, there might be 
a natural wash that bisects a parcel. We have a lot of absentee 
land owners here in Southern Nevada, and for whatever reason, 
they do not want to sell. They want to hang on to their 
parcels. It can also be because the parcel is an odd 
configuration or is sort of an orphan and there are not other 
parcels that can create an assemblage of parcels that can make 
a development project--either residential or non-residential--
usable.
    And so, for a variety of reasons we know that not all of 
the acres remaining in the current disposal boundary will be 
used.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Can you address infill development? 
Is the county looking at infill development? Why or why not?
    Ms. Henson. Yes, absolutely. Infill is a high-priority 
planning action and also a high-priority economic development 
activity in Clark County. Infill is addressed in regional plans 
and plans of the county and all of the local cities. The 
``Southern Nevada Strong'' regional plan is an example. It is 
being addressed in ``All-In Clark County'' and ``Transform 
Clark County'' and we are taking action from those plans to 
reduce barriers to infill. So, for example, we recently worked 
with the Department of the Interior to remove some really 
excessive deed restrictions on some cooperative management 
lands that were conveyed in an earlier lands bill that had lots 
of restrictions on development activities, and so there just 
wasn't any market interest in them, or even if they were 
privately owned, there were so many development restrictions 
that we couldn't really get projects going on those parcels.
    So that is a recent activity that we have taken, and there 
is certainly more to come. It is a high-priority action for the 
cities and for the county.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And then let's talk about 
the climate crisis. Clearly, in the western states, we see the 
impact of the climate crisis, and we see it now more so in 
Nevada in the wildfires and the drought that is happening right 
now. Let me ask both Ms. Torres and Ms. Henson--do you think 
this bill contributes toward mitigating the climate crisis and 
drought concerns or further exacerbates the climate crisis?
    And maybe let me start with Ms. Torres.
    Ms. Torres. Thank you. I think the bill mitigates the 
climate crisis by ensuring the millions of acres that we are 
going to be protecting and also by providing contiguous 
wildlife habitat and space for the climate adaptation for what 
we know is to come, and this is all while opening opportunities 
for local sustainability and climate projects--to fund them as 
Ms. Henson had mentioned that the county is planning--and then 
also addressing the needs of our rapidly growing community.
    We know it is going to grow, and thanks to the expansion of 
the SNPLMA program, we will be able to leverage funding to 
address the impacts of climate change, urban heat, air 
pollution, and carbon emissions.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Ms. Henson, do you have anything to add to that?
    Ms. Henson. Sure, I would like to say that Clark County is 
all-in on climate change and addressing greenhouse gas 
emissions, whether or not this bill moves forward. We have 
already committed to greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, 
and are in this all-in planning process. The thing we are most 
excited about is this funding. We can have all the best laid 
plans, but as you all know, it takes real funding to implement 
actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this bill will 
provide that funding.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    And then one final question. Ms. Henson, we have been 
talking a lot about SNPLMA. I think there are very few of us 
that understand what that means. Do you mind explaining that, 
if you can, very briefly? What is SNPLMA?
    Ms. Henson. SNPLMA is the Southern Nevada Public Lands 
Management Act, and it was enacted in 1998, and it essentially 
helped address the development and population growth crisis 
that was going on throughout the 1990's. And it essentially 
created a disposal boundary that within which any BLM parcel 
could be made available for disposal, and it relies on a joint 
nomination process between the BLM and local governments. It 
allows a developer to request a parcel to be disposed of and 
then the local unit of government goes through a process to 
assess conforming with local plans, appropriateness for the 
development of that parcel, or whether or not that parcel needs 
to be reserved.
    The land, if it is nominated for sale, the BLM goes through 
a competitive auction process, and those proceeds are retained 
in a special account. A lot of those funds go back to the 
federal agencies to do capital improvements and conservation 
actions, some of it remains available through a competitive 
grant process to fund local projects related to implementation 
of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and local 
parks and open space projects as well.
    So it is really a foundational planning process, if you 
will, for Southern Nevada, and S. 567 would build upon the 
success of SNPLMA.
    Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
    Let me ask my colleague, Senator Lee.
    Senator Hickenlooper, any further questions?
    Thank you. So, there are no further questions. I would like 
to thank our witnesses for their testimony this afternoon, and 
your patience. This is not normal--well, sometimes it is--that 
we have votes in between. So we really appreciate your 
patience. But as you can clearly see, the Senators who came 
through the Subcommittee, it is important--the topics that we 
have today on the agenda, which are 14 public lands bills that 
impact our states in various ways. And so thank you again for 
your patience.
    Some members of the Committee may submit additional 
questions in writing, and if so, we will ask our witnesses to 
submit answers for the record. Committee members will have 
until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow to submit additional questions for the 
record. We will keep the hearing record open for two weeks to 
receive any additional comments. The Subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 5:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                      APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                           [all]