[Senate Hearing 118-285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-285
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 EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 636 S. 1622 S. 1890
S. 912 S. 1634 S. 2020
S. 1015 S. 1657 S. 2042
S. 1088 S. 1760 S. 2136
S. 1254 S. 1776 S. 2149
S. 1405 S. 2216
----------
JULY 12, 2023
----------
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
55-559 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
MARK KELLY, Arizona CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
------
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 BILL CASSIDY
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER JOSH HAWLEY
Renae Black, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
David Brooks, General Counsel
Peter Stahley, Professional Staff Member
Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
Justin J. Memmott, 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...................................................... 3
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon...................... 27
Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana.................. 30
Kelly, Hon. Mark, a U.S. Senator from Arizona.................... 31
Hoeven, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota.............. 32
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from Colorado............ 33
WITNESSES
Heinlein, Thomas, Assistant Director, National Conservation Lands
and Community Partnerships, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 174
French, Chris, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture........................ 208
Entsminger, John J., General Manager, Southern Nevada Water
Authority...................................................... 224
McConkie, Michelle, Director, Utah School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration........................................... 235
Heringer, Joseph, A., Commissioner of University and School Trust
Lands, North Dakota Department of Trust Lands.................. 278
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Agrawal, Shreya:
Malheur Enterprise article entitled ``Owyhee Act Changes Draw
Support from Ranchers, Conservationists'' published July 5,
2023....................................................... 314
Malheur Enterprise article entitled ``Wyden Makes Swing
Through Malheur County'' published June 27, 2023........... 317
American Rivers:
Letter for the Record........................................ 377
American Whitewater:
Letter for the Record dated October 29, 2019................. 138
Letter for the Record dated July 11, 2023.................... 381
Angelenos for Green Schools:
Letter for the Record........................................ 389
Arapahoe Basin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 137
Archuleta County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 155
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers:
Letter for the Record dated July 10, 2023.................... 35
Letter for the Record dated April 1, 2019.................... 107
Letter for the Record addressed to Senator Bennet............ 169
Basalt, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 78
Bears Ears Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 5
Beaver County (UT) Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 7
Bennet, Hon. Michael F.:
Opening Statement............................................ 33
Breckenridge, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 80
Burns Paiute Tribe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 307
California State Coastal Conservancy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 390
Carbon County (UT) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 9
Carbondale, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 69
Carbondale Historical Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 129
Carlson, Brad:
Capital Press article entitled ``Reintroduced Owyhee
Wilderness Bill Includes New Features'' published June 17,
2023....................................................... 329
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 392
Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs:
Letter for the Record........................................ 45
Colorado River Indian Tribes:
Statement for the Record..................................... 391
(The) Conservation Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 116
(The) Conservation Alliance et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 160
Conservation Colorado:
Letter for the Record........................................ 118
Conservation Lands Foundation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 394
Cortez, CO (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 170
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Cox, Hon. Spencer J., Governor of Utah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 11
Crested Butte, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 67
Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 131
Cureton Cook, Emily:
Oregon Public Broadcasting article entitled ``Federal Powers
Seek Compromise on Protections for Oregon's Owyhee''....... 319
Daines, Hon. Steve:
Opening Statement............................................ 30
Davis, Tim:
Guest opinion on Owyhee protection proposal, published in the
Argus Observer, June 25, 2023.............................. 309
Dillon, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 95
Dolores, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 168
Dolores County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 158
Dolores County (CO) et al.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 399
Dolores River Boating Advocates et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 156
Duchesne County (UT) Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 13
Eagle County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 50
Emery County (UT) Public Lands Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 14
Entsminger, John J.:
Opening Statement............................................ 224
Written Testimony............................................ 226
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 300
Environment America:
Letter for the Record........................................ 150
Fleischmann, Mary:
Letter to the editor of Source Weekly, published June 29,
2023....................................................... 310
French, Chris:
Opening Statement............................................ 208
Written Testimony............................................ 210
Friends of the Owyhee:
Letter for the Record........................................ 311
Advertisement for Wyden Town Hall in Malheur County, from the
Argus Observer, June 23, 2023.............................. 325
Frisco, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 94
Glenwood Springs, CO (City of):
Letter for the Record with attachments....................... 71
Great Old Broads for Wilderness:
Letter for the Record dated March 25, 2019................... 133
Letter for the Record dated July 7, 2023..................... 312
Grow Monrovia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 403
Gunnison County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 48
Heaton, Al:
Letter for the Record........................................ 162
Heinlein, Thomas:
Opening Statement............................................ 174
Written Testimony............................................ 177
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 298
Heringer, Joseph A.:
Opening Statement............................................ 278
Written Testimony............................................ 280
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 302
Hoeven, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 32
International Mountain Bicycling Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 104
Jagged Edge Mountain Gear:
Letter for the Record........................................ 165
Kelly, Hon. Mark:
Opening Statement............................................ 31
La Paz County (AZ) Board of Supervisors:
Letter for the Record........................................ 404
La Plata County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 164
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Los Angeles County (CA) Board of Supervisors:
Letter for the Record........................................ 410
Martin, Brett D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 163
McConkie, Michelle:
Opening Statement............................................ 235
Written Testimony............................................ 237
Millard County (UT) Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 17
Minturn, CO (Town of):
Resolution No. 20 -- Series 2019............................. 96
Montezuma County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 151
(The) Mountain Pact:
Letter for the Record........................................ 87
Mountain Village, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 91
Mount Crested Butte, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 100
National Mining Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 409
National Parks Conservation Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 119
National Wildlife Federation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 109
(The) Nature Conservancy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 159
New Belgium Brewing et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 140
North Dakota Grazing Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 304
North Dakota School Boards Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 303
Norwood, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 167
Ophir, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 82
Oregon Natural Desert Association:
Letter for the Record signed by 528 association members,
dated July 11, 2023........................................ 342
Letter for the Record dated July 7, 2023..................... 364
Ouray County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record dated March 2, 2021.................... 55
Letter for the Record dated March 19, 2019................... 56
Resolution No. 2016-009, dated March 15, 2016................ 57
Resolution No. 2011-007, dated February 1, 2011.............. 60
Resolution No. 2007-075, dated November 5, 2007.............. 62
Outdoor Alliance et al.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 331
Outdoor Industry Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 148
Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 28
Owyhee Sportsmen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 365
Packet of news coverage on the Malheur Community Empowerment for
the Owyhee Act (S. 1890)....................................... 313
Paonia, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 97
Pitkin County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 65
Polis, Hon. Jared, Governor of Colorado:
Letter for the Record........................................ 43
Ridgway, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 85
Roaring Fork Audubon Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 122
San Juan Citizens Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 145
San Juan County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 51
San Miguel County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record dated February 8, 2019................. 46
Letter for the Record dated June 24, 2022.................... 152
San Miguel Watershed Coalition:
Letter for the Record........................................ 166
Sanpete County (UT) Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 19
Sevier County (UT) Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 21
Sheep Mountain Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 143
Sierra Club, Colorado Chapter, Roaring Fork Group:
Letter for the Record........................................ 124
Snowmass Village, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 92
Spirit Lake Tribe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 305
Solar Energy International:
Letter for the Record........................................ 126
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 23
Southern Ute Indian Tribe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 41
Southwestern Water Conservation District:
Letter for the Record........................................ 171
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 306
Summit County (CO) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 53
Support packet for the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy
Act............................................................ 38
Telluride, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 77
Telluride Nordic Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 147
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership:
Letter for the Record........................................ 114
Thompson, Leslie:
Argus Observer article entitled ``U.S. Senators Ron Wyden,
Jeff Merkley, Aim for Community Empowerment on Malheur
County's Federal Lands'' published June 21, 2023........... 321
Argus Observer article entitled ``U.S. Senator Ron Wyden:
`Collaborative work in Malheur County will get national
attention' '' published June 21, 2023...................... 326
Trout Unlimited:
Statement for the Record dated April 3, 2019................. 111
Letter for the Record dated September 6, 2022................ 173
Letter for the Record with attached statement letters on S.
636, S. 1622, S. 1634, S. 1776, S. 1890, S. 2149, and S.
2216....................................................... 367
(The) Trust for Public Land:
Letter for the Record........................................ 135
Uintah County (UT) Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 24
U.S. Department of Energy:
Statement for the Record..................................... 412
U.S. Department of the Interior:
Statement for the Record..................................... 413
U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service:
Statement for the Record..................................... 414
Utah Land Trusts Protection and Advocacy Office:
Letter for the Record........................................ 26
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe:
Letter for the Record dated October 5, 2022.................. 42
Letter for the Record dated July 7, 2022..................... 154
Vail, CO (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 98
Western Small Miners Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 172
Wewa, Wilson:
Letter for the Record........................................ 375
(The) Wilderness Society:
Letter for the Record dated February 23, 2022................ 102
Statement for the Record dated July 12, 2023................. 461
Wilderness Workshop:
Letter for the Record........................................ 120
Wild Montana:
Statement for the Record..................................... 416
Wild Olympics Campaign:
Statement for the Record with Appendices A-J................. 420
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
Opening Statement............................................ 27
----------
The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be found
on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/
2023/7/subcommittee-hearing-to-receive-testimony-on-pending-legislation
PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Catherine
Cortez Masto, Chair of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. The hearing will come to order. We
have a full agenda this afternoon, with 17 bills representing
priorities of members on both sides of the aisle, including
several members of this Committee. Several bills on this
afternoon's agenda have been before the Committee in previous
years. Although many of the issues are familiar, we wanted to
allow Committee members the opportunity to get updated
information and ask any questions that they might have. Most of
the bills on today's agenda are state-specific. Many of the
more comprehensive land bills are the product of years of on-
the-ground work to try and develop a local consensus on the
appropriate balance of the many competing priorities for use of
our public lands. After members of the Committee have had an
opportunity to provide opening statements, we will hear from
Senator Bennet, when he gets here, to introduce two of his
bills that he and Senator Hickenlooper have sponsored.
Following that, we will then hear from our representatives from
the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, who will
provide the Administration's testimony on the bills and from
state witnesses on three of the bills before us today.
Before concluding, I want to say a few remarks on the three
bills that I have sponsored. Regarding the first one, this is
S. 1622, the End Speculative Oil and Gas Leasing Act. This bill
establishes a process by which the BLM shall assess federal
land parcels' oil and gas development potential before offering
those lands for lease, and then prohibiting leasing on any
lands determined to have low or no development potential. The
bill does not apply to existing leases. It applies only to
future leasing decisions. This bill would benefit the
management of our public lands by accomplishing the following:
by excluding lands with no potential from leasing, it would
largely end the practice of speculative leasing by encouraging
both BLM and oil and gas companies to focus exploration and
drilling activities on lands with higher development potential.
It also allows the BLM to prioritize areas without development
potential for other uses, such as conservation, grazing,
mining, recreation, or renewable energy development. And it
reduces costs associated with preparing low-potential lands for
auctions and then issuing and monitoring those non-producing
leases. The bill is a common-sense, middle-ground approach. It
allows lands to be periodically reassessed for their
development potential should new data or technologies prove an
area's development viability.
The next bill that I am introducing is S. 1760. This is the
Apex Area Technical Corrections Act. This legislation would
make it easier to grow existing businesses and open new
businesses in the Apex Industrial Park in North Las Vegas. The
bill allows the city of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial
Park Owners Association to be granted managing authority of
utility and transportation rights-of-way for the connection of
electric power, water, natural gas, rail and road facilities,
and other utilities at the Apex Industrial Park. Although the
Apex site is managed by a public-private partnership, the 1989
law creating the industrial park directed the BLM to issue
utility rights-of-way across this site. This has often resulted
in a lengthy permitting process for businesses that need to
construct necessary infrastructure across the BLM-managed
utility corridors. The bill provides relief to Apex's
complicated permitting process to really deliver faster, more
efficient permits for new and existing businesses looking to
expand their operations.
The third bill I have introduced, and it is on the schedule
today and on the agenda, is S. 2042. This is the Sloan Canyon
Conservation and Horizon Lateral Water Pipeline Act. This bill
expands the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area by 9,290
acres and it improves the water reliability system in the
southern portion of the Las Vegas Valley by providing a right-
of-way for the proposed southern alignment of a water
conveyance project known as the Horizon Lateral, a portion of
which would be placed underneath Sloan Canyon. The Horizon
Lateral provides redundancy and flexibility to the lone
existing water pipeline that serves 40 percent of the residents
and businesses in the Las Vegas Valley, including the city of
Henderson, which has about 322,000 people. The existing 25-
year-old South Valley Lateral will reach 95 percent capacity in
a decade and will not be able to safely and reliably serve
residents and businesses in the Las Vegas Valley for the long
term. As will be discussed by one of our witnesses, John
Entsminger, from the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the
placement of this water pipeline is the community's preferred
route to the alternative that would otherwise run through the
city of Henderson, causing greater traffic congestion and
disturbance to residents and businesses, cost ratepayers an
additional $200 million, and considerably delay the completion
of construction beyond 2030. The preferred route for the
Horizon Lateral significantly minimizes impacts to the natural
and built environment, and is broadly supported by the state,
Clark County, the City of Henderson, local business
associations, homeowner associations, labor organizations,
travel and tourism associations, and local conservation
organizations.
So at this time, I would also like to recognize my
colleague and Ranking Member, Senator Lee, for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thanks so much, Madam Chair, and thank you for
convening this important Subcommittee hearing. And I want to
thank our witnesses also, many of whom have traveled a pretty
far distance in order to be here.
I have introduced two bills that will be on today's
legislative hearing agenda, S. 2136, the Utah State Parks
Adjustment Act and S. 1405, the Utah School and Institutional
Trust Lands Administration Exchange Act of 2023. These bills
will improve land management in the great State of Utah while
also promoting responsible stewardship and local control. In
particular, I would like to thank Director Michelle McConkie of
the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration.
That is a mouthful, but she is up to the task of handling this
entity with a big name and an even bigger task. The entity
known as SITLA is much easier to pronounce when you don't use
the whole name. Director McConkie, of course, grew up in rural
Utah and has worked for SITLA in a number of capacities over
the last two decades and has developed a real expertise and a
strong reputation for professionalism and competency in this
area. She is someone who personally understands the needs of
rural communities and the many nuances of public land and
public land management. Under her leadership, SITLA ensures
that roughly $95 million of funding per year are responsibly
generated and disbursed from SITLA into a trust fund for the
benefit of Utah's public schools.
For the non-Utahans in the room, SITLA trust lands are
parceled in individual one-square-mile sections. And if you
have ever looked at a map of Utah, you will notice that it
resembles a checkerboard. And one of the many reasons for this
is because the unique layout of SITLA's lands, where Utah was
given sections 2, 16, 32, and 36 to each 36-mile township,
creating this nice checkerboard formation and a pattern that,
if we suddenly didn't have the ability to write, would be
easily recognizable to anyone as SITLA lands. SITLA is tasked
with managing roughly 3.4 million acres of trust lands in Utah,
and also the revenues generated from the lands, in the most
prudent and profitable manner possible, and not for any purpose
inconsistent with the best interest of the trust beneficiaries.
Trust lands, unlike public lands, are lands allocated by
Congress to generate revenue to support specific state
institutions including state schools, public schools in the
state, and also state hospitals. The proceeds generated by the
program are deposited into a trust fund, totaling over $2
billion today. Led by Director McConkie, SITLA works really
hard and very effectively to ensure that the trust lands of
Utah generate the economic prosperity to fund public
institutions and create economic opportunity, particularly for
rural communities. It has been a privilege to work with SITLA
as well as various people from the State of Utah, the Bureau of
Land Management, and other local stakeholders in creating
consensus-driven land exchange to benefit the school kids and
rural communities of Utah.
So I am pleased to present legislation that codifies a
memorandum of understanding signed by Governor Cox and
Secretary Haaland. This MOU facilitates the exchange of 162,000
acres of state trust land within the Bears Ears National
Monument for 167,000 acres of BLM land elsewhere in the state.
To be sure, there's nothing about this bill that means that the
many issues surrounding the designation of the Bears Ears
National Monument have been settled. Far from it. Through an
abuse of the Antiquities Act, over 1.3 million acres of land in
San Juan County, the poorest county in Utah, were locked up in
a new national monument overnight, despite opposition from
local communities and the entire Utah Congressional delegation
at the time when this occurred on December 28, 2016. San Juan
County is forced to deal with the burdens created by the
monument designation--increased costs associated with law
enforcement, search and rescue, road maintenance, waste, and
visitation, and is unable to generate much revenue, all because
of a restrictive monument designation the size of Delaware
within one county.
Given these issues, the decision to proceed with this land
exchange was a complicated, delicate, and sometimes harrowing
process that came a long way over the last two years. While
certainly not a perfect deal, this exchange strikes a balance--
a fair balance that has been driven by local stakeholder input.
The bill presents a unique opportunity to provide economic
development opportunities that will provide serious long-term
benefits to the schoolchildren of Utah. The current trust lands
within the Bears Ears National Monument, within the boundaries
of that monument, generate little revenue for the school trust.
SITLA has gone above and beyond the call of duty to identify
parcels throughout the state, particularly in San Juan County,
which have potential to generate revenue and otherwise be
sources of economic development. This bill has received letters
of support from Carbon County, Sanpete County, Sevier, Millard,
Duchesne, Beaver, Emery, and Uintah Counties, along with
Governor Spencer Cox, as well as other leaders, including
tribal leaders and conservation groups.
I ask unanimous consent that these letters be entered into
the record.
Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
[Letters of support for S. 1405 follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. I would also like to highlight another piece
of legislation, S. 2136, which would convey a few small parcels
of federal land to the State of Utah. These parcels are either
inholdings or they are located directly adjacent to Utah State
Park boundaries. A lot of people remember Utah for our national
parks, which are fantastic, and I would encourage everyone to
use them and visit them. We are less well-known for our state
parks, which are well-managed, well-staffed, well cared for,
and really beautiful places. State parks play a vital role in
promoting outdoor recreation, tourism, and economic growth in
Utah. However, the presence of federal enclaves and fragmented
ownership, exacerbated by the fact that the Federal Government
owns two-thirds of the land in Utah, tends to create
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and land management
inefficiencies that complicate all sorts of endeavors,
including the management of state parks. These parcels include
additions to the Wasatch Mountain State Park, Antelope Island
State Park, and Fremont State Park. Transferring title of these
small parcels of land to the state will consolidate land
ownership, simplify management, and enhance the overall
efficiency of our state park system. This will enable the Utah
State Park System to better preserve and protect these natural
treasures for future generations.
I thank the members for their thoughtful consideration of
these bills that are before us today, and I hope today's
testimony can help satisfy or resolve any concerns that members
of the Subcommittee might have, and that we will be able to
expedite these bills out of Committee and into legislation on
the floor with all due haste and deliberate speed.
Thank you, and I yield back my time.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Now is the time for any Committee members to provide
opening statements.
Senator Wyden.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And for my constituents who live in rural Oregon, this is
truly an exhilarating and exciting occasion. After decades and
decades of back-and-forth arguments for one position or not,
debates about the role of the Federal Government, the
possibility of a monument, we have been able to come together
for the Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act.
And Madam Chair, I'm going to give a brief statement, but I
would like to put into the record a document that we have never
seen before in our region--a letter indicating that ranchers,
conservationists, the tribes, all of the small businesses, have
come out strongly for this proposal, and I would ask unanimous
consent that it be part of the record.
Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
[The letter of support for S. 1890 follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wyden. So Madam President and colleagues, as I was
telling my colleague from New Mexico, if you read the write-ups
from back East, they always call it Oregon's version of the
Grand Canyon. We really call it home, and what I can tell you
is, this really began, once again, after decades of back-and-
forth, when some ranchers came to see me in the winter of 2018
and asked me to try, yet again, to bring all the parties
together and see if we could pass legislation to have a
community-driven approach to the Owyhee. And they looked a
little bit sheepish. They looked at their shoes. And finally, I
asked one of them, is the reality that you are here to see me
today a fact that you basically think I'm the only one crazy
enough to be willing to take one more try at coming together?
The ranchers smiled, and being the kind of blunt sorts, one of
them said, ``Yup, that's exactly why we are here.'' And that
began our effort to try to find common ground, and what I will
tell you is, there's a lesson for everybody as it relates to
our work on building these kinds of coalitions.
If you can, see if you can muster up an uncommon amount of
common sense, because that is how my constituents in Eastern
Oregon pulled this together. And we have a piece of legislation
that preserves not just a treasured landscape for its beauty
and ecological significance, but importantly, it preserves our
agriculture culture and way of life for people who call it
home. It provides grazing and operational flexibility for
permit holders on BLM lands, is designed to preserve
environmental integrity, delivers additional certainty and
management direction for roughly two million acres of public
land in Malheur County, designating half as wilderness, and
ensures the rest is managed for multiple uses. It creates the
Malheur County Empowerment for the Owyhee group, an
organization of local ranchers, environmental groups, and
tribal representation to advise on flexible grazing management
and help develop projects to improve landscape health. There's
transfers of 30,000 acres in the trust for the Burns Paiute
Tribe, and it creates a larger co-stewardship area for the
tribe and the BLM on these culturally significant lands, and it
spurs economic development for a region very much in need of it
through provisions to develop recreational opportunities and
other amenities.
Fundamentally--and I appreciate the Chair's indulgence on
this, we have all got a hectic day--it represents a locally
driven solution. Thousands of miles from Washington, DC, is
this wonderful place that we call the Owyhee, and they are
going to drive the approach that ranchers and conservationists
and the tribes have come up with. So this is a really big day
for my constituents in eastern Oregon. A couple of my
constituents said recently that they are pinching themselves to
believe that we actually got this agreement.
Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent, as I wrap up, I
have a couple of questions for the Bureau of Land Management.
They have been very supportive in terms of providing counsel
and we wrote the legislation to provide management direction to
the BLM based on local input from the community, and the BLM
has been very supportive. And I would ask unanimous consent for
those questions to be part of the record.
And I thank all my colleagues, who have been very patient.
And I know Senator Heinrich and I are both going to end up in
the committee we can't talk much about, and Senator Bennet will
a little bit later. So I thank my colleagues for all the time.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Without objection.
Any other opening statements?
Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks for
holding this hearing.
Today, we are going to hear testimony on one of my bills,
which is the Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act. This is
something that isn't just words for me. It is something that we
live vigorously and passionately in our family. I know how
important public lands are to Montanans. Local input and the
best available science should guide land management decisions.
But unfortunately, Congressional inaction has left many areas
in Montana in limbo. In 1976 and 1977, Congress passed the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Montana
Wilderness Study Act, calling on the Bureau of Land Management
and the Forest Service to determine if 47 wilderness study
areas were suitable for permanent wilderness designation. And
let the record show, I am not opposed to adding more
wilderness. In fact, we have done this in a bipartisan way,
adding more wilderness in Montana--first time in decades, we
did this together several years ago. In fact, my wife and I
love spending a good chunk of time in August in the Beartooth
Wilderness Area ourselves. If you came to my office, you would
see a great big topo map of the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness.
You will see a little red pin on every lake that we have been
to up in that area, and it has been a lifetime. I could
probably write a book on which particular fly works in which
particular lake, chasing which particular species of fish. And
sometimes it confounds members on the other side that there is
a Republican that actually understands and spends as much time
in the wilderness as anybody else here on Capitol Hill.
These studies were completed in 1979 and 1991, but decades
of DC inaction have prevented increased access to our public
lands because these wilderness study areas are managed as de
facto wilderness areas, even though Congress--Congress--has not
deemed them wilderness. We need a more flexible management
framework that should be guided by local communities who are
closer to these lands, as Senator Wyden pointed out. It is
great to see local voices in regards to these federal lands.
This bill I have will help unlock some of these lands and
return more access to public hands. We need to go back and look
at what Congress said when these policies were passed back in
1976 and 1977. They said the Forest Service has five years to
complete the studies and make the recommendations to Congress
and we need to act on it. BLM had 15 years. Look, we are going
back to 1976 and 1977. We are way overdue to take action to
deem which are suitable for wilderness, which are not, and act
on it appropriately. Release those that are not suitable for
wilderness, and those that are suitable, we should be moving
forward for wilderness proposals. Look, we have 3.4 million
acres of wilderness in Montana. Since 1976, when the first of
these wilderness study areas were created, now 1.8 million
Montana acres have been designated as permanent wilderness.
However, only 150,000 acres have been returned to general
management. These are the study areas--and 1.1 million Montana
acres remain locked up as de facto wilderness when that was
never, ever the intent of Congress, despite the Forest Service
and BLM recommending that the majority of these acres be
returned to general management and multiple use. Following a
multiyear collaborative process with strong public comment,
spanning multiple Administrations, the three areas in my bill,
covering just over 100,000 acres, were recently deemed
unsuitable for wilderness management yet again. Montanans are
tired of going through the process of studying and providing
input on these areas and then not seeing any action or
resolution. This imbalance and inaction is unacceptable, and I
am determined to fix it. My Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act
will improve the ability to restore wildlife habitat, enhance
sportsman opportunity, mitigate wildfire risk, and increase
public access to public lands in Montana.
I would like to clear up some misinformation about what
would occur if we return these lands to general management.
Each land management plan contains a blueprint that was created
with public input for managing these areas post-release. And
these plans maintain important protections while allowing the
land agencies more flexibility in how they manage the
landscapes. This flexibility is critical as we head into
another fire season, to give the agencies the tools they need
to properly manage these forests and reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildfire devastating our forests. In summary, my
bill would mean more public access and more public input for
public lands.
I also understand Senator Tester's Blackfoot Clearwater
Stewardship Act is on the agenda today as well. I know this
bill derives from a local collaborative agreement. I spend a
lot of time in that part of our state hunting spring bear. They
have received input from timber stakeholders, from wilderness
advocates, from outfitters. I commend the hard work of that
collaborative approach. I do think we need more work. We can
find a balanced approach. There is a path forward to get this
done, but we just have to get back to thinking about the
wilderness study areas and finding a bipartisan way to move
this across the finish line. I would like to see that happen,
but we have got more work to do on that Blackwater Clearwater
Stewardship Act.
Madam Chairman, thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Would any other Senators on the Committee like to make an
opening statement?
Senator Kelly.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK KELLY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kelly. Madam Chair, I want to first of all thank
you for including S. 1015 and S. 1657 in this hearing. And I
was proud to introduce the first bill earlier this Congress,
with Representative Crane leading efforts in the House. The
transfer of this 232-acre area will allow Gila County to build
a veterans center in Young, Arizona that will serve not only
the nearly 5,500 military veterans who call Gila County home,
but also veterans throughout rural Arizona. And this center
will be the first of its kind in northern Arizona, providing
the community with a space to gather. Additionally, this new
center will also serve as a mobile clinic for veterans who
can't easily access a VA medical center. This is going to help
address some of the disparities facing veterans living in rural
areas and improving their long-term health outcomes. As a Navy
veteran myself, I am committed to keeping America's promises to
our veterans and delivering the care and benefits that they
have earned. This piece of legislation provides a place for our
veterans in Gila County and will help veterans in a rural area
of northern Arizona get the support and resources that they
need. I appreciate the Forest Service's support of this bill in
Deputy Chief French's written testimony.
Senator Sinema and I introduced the second bill, which
would transfer 4,800 acres from the Bureau of Land Management
to La Paz County at fair market value. This land will be used
for solar energy projects, attracting economic development
opportunities to an underserved community, and that is going to
create good-paying Arizona jobs and facilitate the transition
to clean energy and ensure La Paz County's economy continues to
grow. And you know, Mr. Heinlein, who I believe is here, I
appreciate you testifying today and BLM's commitment to making
the bill work for everyone.
So Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Anyone else on Committee?
Senator Hoeven.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just briefly, I have legislation which I have on the agenda
today. And I also want to make an introduction, but the
legislation is the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act. And
essentially what it does is, it is legislation that I am
leading on behalf of our North Dakota delegation. Senator
Cramer is also a co-sponsor and we have House sponsorship of it
as well.
Currently, North Dakota has more than 130,000 acres of
minerals and over 31,000 surface acres located within tribal
reservations in our state that are largely unavailable for
development. So this legislation creates a streamlined process,
which will enable North Dakota to access the land and the
minerals promised upon statehood to fund education, while at
the same time, providing the tribes with ownership over lands
that are within their boundaries. So it's a win for the State
of North Dakota. It's a win for our tribes as well.
And I had hoped to introduce Joe Heringer, who is here
today, but I am going to have to go beforehand. So just
briefly, if I could just take a couple minutes and do a quick
introduction.
Joe Heringer is our North Dakota Commissioner of University
and School Lands, and he will talk more about that. And I do
hope to be back to ask him a few questions. It's just that
timing-wise, I can't get him for his introduction. And of
course, I'm dying to hear what Senator Bennet has to say too.
So I want to kind of keep this moving. But Commissioner
Heringer earned a degree from Concordia College in Moorhead,
Minnesota, and his law degree at the University of North
Dakota. And he leads our North Dakota Department of Land
Trusts. I have known him for a long time and I am really
appreciative that he not only took the initiative to do this,
which I say is a win for the state and for our tribes in North
Dakota, but has worked very hard, very diligently on it and is
here with us today.
So thank you so much, Madam Chair, I appreciate it.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Anyone else on Committee?
[No response.]
Senator Bennet, welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL BENNET,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I would like to recognize the distinguished public
service of Senator Hoeven, the former Governor for--no--I'm
just kidding--but thank you for your acknowledgment and for
being here. And Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to
appear here again. To members of the Committee that are here,
my great colleague, Senator Hickenlooper, thank you for the
opportunity to once again speak about two bills that are very,
very important to Colorado--the Dolores River Conservation Area
and Special Management Area Act and the Colorado Outdoor
Recreation Economy, or CORE, Act that Senator Hickenlooper and
I are championing together.
Coloradans crafted these bills on kitchen tables and at
trailheads across our state. The bills were written in
Colorado, not in Washington, and then they reflect thoughtful,
bipartisan collaboration among tribes, county commissioners,
businesses, ranchers, sportsmen, and conservationists. Last
month, my family and I rafted the Dolores River, and I know I
speak for everybody when I say it was a once-in-a-lifetime
experience. We all came off the river inspired and more
committed than ever to protect this remote and beautiful area.
Let's just say that the people that somehow don't get mentioned
in these hearings sometimes are the guides that take you down
on these rafts, and the folks from Mile to Wild did an amazing
job. Anna, who was in our boat with my daughters and with my
wife, could not have been more extraordinary, and their lives,
their economy, is dedicated to the public lands and to the
rivers that this Committee, this Congress, represent. It was
interesting to have a conversation with all of them about that.
And the next day, literally, I think the second day that we
were on the trip on the Dolores, another guide, Sara Rosecrans,
also from the same company, actually lost her life in the Upper
Animas River as she was trying to practice for the people that
would come to raft. So when you say, or when I say, Martin says
or John, or the rest of us say that these folks are dedicating
their lives to the outdoors, that is actually what is
happening. And I just want to say thank you to Anna and the
rest of her crew and to Sara for their inspiration.
The Dolores River is internationally known for its
staggering red rock walls that tower over ponderosa pines. And
the Dolores is also the lifeblood of western Colorado,
supplying water to our farmers, our ranchers, and our outdoor
recreation enthusiasts. This bill represents a balanced, hard-
fought, common-sense way forward to resolve generations-long
community disagreements, protect the river for everybody, and
provide long-term certainty for generations. In fact, I would
never have been even able to introduce this bill without the
bipartisan support of people living near the river who might
not agree on anything else, but have come to an agreement on
this river--Republican and Democratic county commissioners in
three counties in Southwest Colorado, along with the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe, local agricultural and ranching interests,
and conservation groups all support our bill to protect the
Dolores. And there is no reason to wonder why they know that
they have an obligation to protect it for their kids and for
their grandkids. And if they don't do it, they know nobody else
will. And that is why earlier this year, every Republican in
the Colorado delegation, in the House of Representatives,
joined together to introduce an identical version of this bill
in the House.
And before I ask you for your support, I want to also
answer Senator Heinrich's question about Snaggletooth, which
was, you enter to the right of the pour over and then you work
your way left. And that is how you get through the Snaggletooth
and that is how you avoid the big rocks. And of course, Anna
was the one avoiding the big rocks, but that's what we did.
Then, I have to mention also while I am here, the CORE Act.
Madam Chair, please allow me to describe this important bill,
also written in Colorado. Many of you have heard me discuss
this bill over the years, so I will be brief today, but
Coloradans of all stripes have been working on the CORE Act for
over a decade to conserve over 420,000 acres of public lands in
Colorado. County commissioners across the political spectrum,
outfitters, ranchers, hunters and anglers, and local businesses
all came together to hammer out a compromise and find the best
way forward to protect iconic places like the Thompson Divide
and the San Juan Mountains. And I ask this Committee to honor
the incredible bipartisan work that was done to create this
legislation.
And as evidence of the broad coalition that is fighting to
pass the CORE Act and the Dolores River bill, Madam Chair, I
come with letters and testimony from counties, tribal leaders,
conservation groups, sportsmen, water districts, and community
leaders supporting each of these bills. I ask unanimous consent
that these letters be entered into the hearing record.
Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
[Letters of support for S. 636 and S. 1634 follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And as I close, I would like to ask for your support and
the support of the Committee to move this legislation forward.
The CORE Act, like the Dolores River bill, reflects the kind of
bipartisan consensus that should be honored by this Senate.
Thank you for your time.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to introduce our witness panel
and invite them to come to the testifying table.
We welcome the following individuals to the Subcommittee
today:
Thomas Heinlein, the Assistant Director for National
Conservation Lands and Community Partnerships at the Bureau of
Land Management.
Chris French, the Deputy Chief of the Forest Service.
As you have heard earlier, John Entsminger, a fellow
Nevadan, and the General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water
Authority, who will be testifying with respect to S. 2042, the
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and Horizon Lateral
Water Pipeline.
Michelle McConkie, the Director of the Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration will be talking on
Senate bill 1405, the Utah BLM Land Exchange bill.
And Joseph Heringer, the Commissioner of University and
School Trust Lands at the North Dakota Department of Trust
Lands.
I invite each of you to limit your oral statements to no
more than five minutes, and after everyone on the panel has had
a chance to give their opening statement, we will then go into
a round of questions from the Committee.
Mr. Heinlein, I am going to ask you to start with your
statement. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS HEINLEIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CONSERVATION LANDS AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Heinlein. Thank you.
Chairwoman Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee, and members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony on 12 bills on the hearing agenda today related to
the Bureau of Land Management. I am Tom Heinlein, BLM's
Assistant Director for National Conservation Lands and
Community Partnerships. The BLM manages approximately 245
million surface acres located primarily in 12 western states as
well as 30 percent of the nation's onshore mineral resources
across 700 million subsurface acres under the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act. The BLM is committed to its core
mission of multiple use and sustained yield, which provides for
careful balancing across many uses and resources to steward
public lands for all people. We appreciate the sponsors' work
on the bills under consideration today, which apply to several
facets of the BLM's broad multiple-use mandate. I will briefly
touch on the BLM-related bills on the agenda.
The Department supports several of the bills under
consideration that align with the Administration's conservation
goals and efforts to restore balance on public lands and
waters. This includes S. 1405, which facilitates the exchange
of state-owned land within or near the Bears Ears National
Monument in Utah for BLM-managed public lands. The bill would
promote conservation and appropriate resource management in a
manner consistent with the 2016 and 2021 Presidential
proclamations protecting the monument, including the protection
of invaluable cultural resources and sites. Lands within the
monument are profoundly sacred to many tribal nations and
contain evidence of thousands of years of occupation by
indigenous peoples. The bill will ensure the acquired lands are
managed to protect their cultural and natural resources and
improve management of the monument by reducing the checkerboard
effect from lands that the state is statutorily required to
manage for revenue generation.
In addition, the BLM strongly supports S. 1634, which
designates the McKenna Peak Wilderness on BLM-managed public
lands in Colorado, and withdraws the Thompson Divide from the
Public Land and Mineral Development laws.
The BLM also supports S. 1776 and S. 1890, which together
designate approximately 1.7 million acres of wilderness in
California and Oregon, as well as S. 636, which establishes the
Dolores River National Conservation and Special Management
Areas in Colorado. S. 2136 directs the conveyance of isolated
federal parcels within or adjacent to the Antelope Island and
Wasatch Mountain State Parks in Utah, and the BLM supports
these conveyances.
Regarding S. 2216, the Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act,
which would release over 103,000 acres of federal lands from
wilderness study area designation, the BLM recommends further
evaluation of these WSAs, as wilderness and wilderness study
areas are essential components of conservation that are
critical for ecosystem health and biodiversity.
S. 1088 would authorize the relinquishment to the Secretary
of the Interior of certain lands and mineral estate granted to
the State of North Dakota that are located within the
boundaries of four tribal reservations in the state. The BLM
supports the sponsor's goal of addressing the patchwork of
inholdings within existing reservation boundaries and we are
committed to managing public lands in a manner that seeks to
protect the treaty, religious, subsistence, and cultural
interests of federally recognized tribes. The BLM also supports
the goals of S. 1657, which would direct the conveyance of BLM-
managed public lands to promote renewable energy development in
La Paz County, Arizona.
Both S. 1760 and S. 2042 authorize rights-of-way to
facilitate development of public infrastructure in Nevada. The
BLM would like to work with the sponsor of S. 1760 to ensure
that it retains discretion on the issuance of future rights-of-
way. And while the BLM supports the expansion of the Sloan
Canyon National Conservation Area in S. 2042, the BLM would
like to work with the sponsor to ensure the core values and
resources identified for protection by the creation of the
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area remain protected. S.
1622, meanwhile, would prohibit the leasing of federal lands
for oil and gas development that have been identified as having
low or no oil and gas potential. The BLM strongly supports the
goal of improving the federal onshore oil and gas leasing
process, and would like the opportunity to work with the
sponsor on technical modifications to aid in the bill's
implementation.
Finally, the National Park Service and the Bureau of
Reclamation have submitted statements for the record on S. 1254
and S. 2020.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on these
bills. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heinlein follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Mr. French.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS FRENCH, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. French. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Cortez Masto and
Ranking Member Lee and members of the Committee. Thank you for
the opportunity to present the viewpoint of the USDA Forest
Service regarding nine public land bills that are presently
under consideration. With the responsibility of managing 193
million acres of national forest and grasslands, the Forest
Service plays a critical role in conserving our nation's
extensive public lands. Our mission encompasses recreation,
grazing, water, timber and mineral production, watershed
conservation, wildlife and fish habitat conservation, and
broad-scale landscape conservation. We are stewards of 448
wilderness areas and more than 5,000 miles of wild and scenic
rivers. Many of today's bills add to those systems and align to
the Administration's broader climate and conservation goals
expressed through executive orders and Secretary Vilsack's
secretarial memoranda. National forests serve as critical
contributors to the American economy. Recreation activities
contribute over $13.7 billion to the country's gross domestic
product and directly support more than 160,000 jobs. Each year,
more than 156 million Americans visit our national forests.
Many of today's bills recognize this growing use and facilitate
the continued growth of our recreation-based economy.
S. 1015 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer a
234-acre parcel of land of unused Forest Service administrative
sites to Gila County, Arizona for the purpose of providing
services to veterans. USDA supports this bill as a
straightforward and common-sense solution to provide Gila
County with a facility that they can use.
The Utah State Parks Adjustment Act directs the Secretary
of Agriculture to convey a Forest Service parcel of 272 acres
to the State of Utah. The primary purpose of this would be to
transfer a campground that is already being administered by the
state parks for the county. The proposal makes sense and we are
generally supportive of the bill and would like to work with
the bill's sponsor on a few issues, including some existing
uses, mapping, and water rights.
The End Speculative Oil and Gas Leasing Act establishes
conditions under which the BLM may issue federal oil and gas
leases. USDA supports the bill's noted effect and defers to the
BLM's testimony for other aspects of the bill.
The Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act would release three
wilderness study areas located in Montana, with one of them
occurring on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. USDA
would like to better understand the purpose and need for the
legislation from the bill's sponsor.
The Wild Olympics Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
designates new, and expands existing wilderness areas,
potential wilderness areas, and certain rivers in the Olympic
National Forest and Olympic National Park as wild and scenic
rivers. USDA supports this bill and would like to work with the
Committee and the bill's sponsor to address some technical and
timing concerns.
The CORE Act includes management provisions for national
forests in Colorado, including the designation of new
wilderness areas, designation of wildlife conservation areas,
mineral withdrawals, battery modifications, and transfer of
administrative jurisdiction of National Forest System lands.
USDA supports the bill and its focus on expanding recreation
and defers to the Department of the Interior for their views on
the bill as it affects public lands under their jurisdiction as
well.
The Public Lands Act provides for protection of and
investment in certain federal lands in California. USDA
supports the overall goals on the Public Lands Act, but would
like to work with the Subcommittee and bill sponsor to ensure
that the timeframes identified are implementable, ensure that
it is consistent with the Wilderness Act, address concerns with
areas proposed for new designations that are not consistent
with existing forest plan decisions, and ensure that geographic
descriptions for wilderness boundaries and trails are correct.
The proposed Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act is the
product of a collaborative effort, and we appreciate the
benefits that this legislation could provide to Montana's
communities and the Lolo National Forest. The bill creates two
new recreation management areas, directs the Secretary of
Agriculture to develop a landscape assessment of watershed
conditions and restoration needs and to develop a ten-year
schedule of restoration projects following the assessment. We
support and will continue to work with the bill sponsor to
ensure the bill will complement the current ongoing land
management plan revision process that is occurring.
Finally, the Dolores River National Conservation Area and
Special Management Area designates over 15,000 acres of
National Forest System lands in the San Juan National Forest as
a special management area. USDA supports and appreciates the
broad support that has been developed for this bill that has
been established throughout Southwest Colorado.
This concludes my remarks. I look forward to any questions
that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Entsminger.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. ENTSMINGER, GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN
NEVADA WATER AUTHORITY
Mr. Entsminger. Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee,
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to
testify today in support of S. 2042. I have testified before
Congress several times on drought and the effects of increasing
temperatures on the Colorado River system. Today, I am here to
advocate for the passage of S. 2042, a bill that addresses
another critical water challenge for Southern Nevada--
reliability. In our water system, reliability and redundancy go
hand-in-hand. It's the reason we have recently installed $1.5
billion in infrastructure to ensure our access to water from
Lake Mead--infrastructure that did not increase our ability to
take more Colorado River water by a single gallon.
The Horizon Lateral, a component of this legislation, is an
infrastructure project designed to create redundancy to ensure
that we can deliver 375 million gallons of water from one side
of Las Vegas to the other. It's a project that remedies
vulnerabilities within our water conveyance system. Our
existing South Valley Lateral is the lone transmission line
that handles water deliveries to the southern portion of Las
Vegas. It's 25 years old, and it is imperative that we secure
the ability to shut the lateral down for maintenance or
emergency situations. A failure in this part of our system
would disrupt water service to approximately one million
residents, and 40 percent of area businesses, potentially
impacting public health and economic stability. Let me be
clear--disruption does not mean that water service would be
curtailed or reduced. In the event of a shutdown there is no
other way for us to get water to this part of our system.
We analyzed 92,000 pipeline segments and narrowed the
Horizon Lateral project down to two options. A northern
alternative contemplates building through densely populated
urban areas. Construction along this route would involve 50-
foot-wide trenches within several major roadways. It would
snarl traffic and restrict timely access to schools, hospitals,
homes, businesses, and other essential services. These are not
minor inconveniences, but major disruptions that would last for
many years.
Conversely, as proposed within S. 2042, the southern route
is more feasible, would cost at least $200 million less than
the northern alternative, and be far less disruptive to the
community. The alignment includes subsurface tunneling beneath
the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. Infrastructure
crossing the NCA will be constructed through an underground
tunnel 50 to 2,000 feet below land surface with no discernable
vibrations. The tunnel entrance and tunnel exit will be located
outside of the NCA. Except for geotechnical borehole work to be
performed using air-lifted equipment to a limited number of
small areas that we will restore to their original condition,
there will be zero construction on the surface area disturbance
on the NCA. All other project components are outside of the NCA
boundaries.
The Bureau of Land Management manages the NCA.
Notwithstanding the known benefits of the southern alignment,
BLM advised us that permitting a right-of-way under the NCA to
support the Horizon Lateral is outside the scope of its
authority. That is why we are seeking your support to move the
project forward through the passage of this legislation. The
best way to meet 21st century challenges is to identify and
resolve risks early, proactively, and with well-laid plans.
That is precisely what SNWA has been doing for more than 20
years. This strategy has helped us to identify top priorities
and to develop response measures that have and will continue to
secure our community's water future--from pioneering
conservation programs and initiatives that have significantly
reduced our water demands, to constructing multibillion dollar
facilities to protect our water supply access.
We have been thoughtful, innovative, and quick in
protecting Southern Nevada's water security interests while
being good partners and stewards of the environment. The SNWA
has the experience and track record to complete the Horizon
Lateral project as proposed in S. 2042. Your support will allow
us to remedy vulnerabilities in our water system while avoiding
major disruptions to the community and protecting important NCA
resources. Lastly, I would like to note for the record that
construction of the Horizon Lateral will not increase Nevada's
ability to take Colorado River water by a single drop.
I thank you for your time and stand ready to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Entsminger follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Ms. McConkie.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE McCONKIE, DIRECTOR, UTAH SCHOOL AND
INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION
Ms. McConkie. Chairwoman Cortez Masto, members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
would also like to thank Ranking Member Lee, Representative
Curtis, and the entire Utah Congressional delegation for their
support in connection with the legislation now before the
Subcommittee.
My name is Michelle McConkie. I am the Director of the
State of Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration. We will call it SITLA to make it a little
easier. It is a state agency that manages state trust lands
that were granted by Congress at statehood for the financial
support of public education and other state institutions. SITLA
manages approximately 3.4 million acres of state trust lands
and an additional one million acres of severed mineral estate.
Revenue from activities on these lands is invested, and annual
distributions are made to every public school in the state to
help with each school's most pressing academic needs.
S. 1405 would ratify and authorize implementation of a
March 17, 2023 land exchange agreement between SITLA, Utah
Governor Spencer Cox, and Secretary of the Interior Deb
Haaland. That agreement is a product of over a year and a half
of discussions between the state, federal land managers, local
governments, and other interested stakeholders. The proposed
exchange is supported by rural county governments, various
stakeholders, Governor Cox, and the Utah legislature. The
fundamental problem addressed by this legislation is the issue
of scattered state land inholdings embedded within federal
conservation areas such as national monuments and associated
land management conflicts. The designation of the Bears Ears
National Monument captured more than 200 scattered tracts of
state trust land within its outer boundaries, totaling over
126,000 acres.
The state has been charged by Congress with managing these
school trust lands for the financial benefit of Utah's public
education system through revenue-generating activities. But
restrictions on the use of surrounding federal lands, through
establishment of the monument, will limit the utility of the
inheld state trust lands for economic development. And
development of school trust lands within national monuments and
other designations is directly at odds with the conservation
purposes for which the surrounding federal lands were set
aside. These conflicting mandates and the checkerboard pattern
of state trust lands inholdings will make effective management
of both state trust lands and the monument itself very
difficult, if not impossible. While the declaration of the
monument and its large geographic scope are matters of
significant controversy and litigation between the State of
Utah and the United States, both governments agree that trading
out state land inholdings is in everyone's best interest.
Land exchanges are an effective solution to the management
conflicts associated with inholdings. In the last 25 years, the
State of Utah and the United States have worked successfully to
complete a series of large Congressionally authorized land
exchanges. The hallmark of each of these exchanges was their
win-win nature. School trust lands with significant
environmental values were placed into federal ownership, while
federal lands with lesser environmental values but greater
potential for revenue generation were exchanged to the state.
S. 1405 authorizes the conveyance to the United States of over
162,500 acres of Utah state school trust lands and minerals
within and near the Bears Ears National Monument, as well as
additional lands near the Bonneville Salt Flats of the Great
Salt Lake and other areas of the state where management
conflicts exist. In return, the State of Utah will receive
approximately 167,000 acres of federal lands located in 20
counties throughout the state with lesser environmental
sensitivity but greater potential for generating revenue for
Utah's public education system--again, the purpose for which
Congress originally granted trust lands to Utah and other
western states. These lands have been targeted for oil and gas
development, mining, renewable energy projects, real estate
development, and land sales. The proposed land exchange will
allow our agency to do what it does best--make money for our
public schools while allowing the Department of the Interior to
implement unified management of the monument consistent with
conservation goals.
I respectfully urge the Subcommittee and Congress to
approve S. 1405. Thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McConkie follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Heringer.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. HERINGER, COMMISSIONER OF UNIVERSITY AND
SCHOOL TRUST LANDS, NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRUST LANDS
Mr. Heringer. Madam Chair Cortez Masto, Ranking Member Lee,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. I would also like to thank our North Dakota
delegation, Senators Hoeven and Cramer, and Representative
Armstrong, for their instrumental work in helping to move this
important bill forward.
My name is Joseph Heringer, and I am the North Dakota
Commissioner of University and School Lands. As Commissioner, I
lead the North Dakota Department of Trust Lands, the agency
responsible for managing lands that were granted to North
Dakota by Congress at statehood for the financial support of
public education and other state institutions. The Department
is overseen by the North Dakota Board of University and School
Lands, consisting of the Governor, the Attorney General,
Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Superintendent of Public
Instruction. The Department manages approximately 2.6 million
mineral acres and over 700,000 surface acres. Revenue generated
from this acreage is deposited into 13 permanent trust funds
and invested to provide long-term income for beneficiaries,
such as public schools, colleges and universities, and state
institutions that support disabled populations. The largest
fund is the North Dakota Common Schools Trust Fund, which has a
current balance of approximately $6 billion.
I ask the Committee to support Senate bill 1088, the North
Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act of 2023, as it would allow
North Dakota and the Department of the Interior to exchange
lands for two mutually beneficial purposes. First, providing
North Dakota with more productive and easily accessible lands
for increased revenue to support public education. And second,
helping North Dakota tribal nations to further consolidate
lands within their reservations so they can manage and develop
the land as they see fit. For this bill, we are proud to have
the support of North Dakota's full Congressional delegation,
impacted North Dakota tribal nations, educational
organizations, and Governor Burgum. There are currently 31,000
surface acres owned by North Dakota that are within the
reservation boundaries of North Dakota tribal nations. This is
due to the checkerboard pattern of land ownership that has
evolved since statehood in 1889. This acreage is often
difficult for North Dakota to access and manage, and thus,
cannot be fully developed pursuant to the state's mandate of
generating income for schools, universities, and other public
purposes.
Utilizing the historic tool of ``in-lieu'' relinquishments
and selections, this bill would allow North Dakota to
relinquish state lands trapped within tribal reservations to
the Secretary of Interior and select ``in-lieu thereof''
federal land or mineral rights located elsewhere in the state.
This would allow North Dakota to access and fully develop the
lands it was promised upon statehood. Within tribal
reservations, lands received by the Secretary in these
transactions would be held in trust for the tribes. This would
help tribes consolidate land within their reservation
boundaries for greater ownership and control. The bill also
requires the Secretary and North Dakota to consult with tribes
that would be affected by any proposed transactions. Such
transactions must be deemed of equal value under federally
recognized appraisal standards and methodologies. And it's
important to note these would not be exchanges under the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
As an example, North Dakota could propose the exchange of
state-owned surface acres within a reservation for federally
owned mineral rights elsewhere in the state that are in the
development path of mineral producers. The Secretary would then
review the proposal and consult with the affected tribe. And
the transaction could also be done where North Dakota receives
surface rights elsewhere in the state for the relinquishment of
surface rights within a reservation. Land conveyed under this
bill would be subject to all applicable federal, state, and
tribal law, and valid existing rights will be respected in
these transactions. There will be no impact on any Indian
treaty rights. This is good legislation that promotes the
shared interest and mutually beneficial goals of North Dakota,
the Federal Government, and North Dakota tribal nations.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I would be happy
to answer any questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heringer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you so much to the panelists.
And so we are going to start the Committee questions. I
will kick it off here.
Mr. Entsminger, let me talk to you a little bit about S.
2042, the Sloan Canyon Horizon Lateral bill. Thank you so much.
You really identified the necessary items that were important
as to why the Horizon Lateral needs to occur--the reliability,
the redundancy across the Las Vegas Valley, backup support for
important water transmission for over a million people and 40
percent of the businesses in the Las Vegas Valley, including
the city of Henderson. So I appreciate your comments. You also
addressed the water use. And so, let me have you just focus on
this one more time.
How does the creation of the Horizon Lateral impact the
region's water use? Where is this water coming from?
Mr. Entsminger. As I said in my oral testimony, the
construction and ultimate operation of the Horizon Lateral will
not increase our water usage whatsoever. It is important to
keep in mind that the way the water system works for Southern
Nevada is, we have a pumping station on Lake Mead. That station
is capable of pumping 900 million gallons a day, and then it is
conveyed over the mountains into Las Vegas and distributed
through the system. All this pipeline does is give us better
redundancy within that distribution system. It does not
increase the pumping capacity from Lake Mead at all. So it will
have zero impact on the Colorado River as a resource.
Senator Cortez Masto. And if we don't have this redundancy,
what is your concern?
Mr. Entsminger. Our concern is that even though 25 years
isn't that old for water infrastructure, water infrastructure
needs to be taken down for weeks, sometimes months at a time
for maintenance, even in the absence of an emergency situation.
And we think that our South Valley Lateral will need to be
taken down for maintenance as early as 2030. So we really have
an urgency to get going with the project. And if we are not
able to go on the southern alignment, ultimately, we are going
to have no choice but to go on that northern alignment and have
those, you know, pretty significant impacts to our community
that I have outlined.
Senator Cortez Masto. And so let's talk about that. And I
appreciate your comments because you have really done your
analysis on the impacts and why this is needed, but the impacts
to the environment and to the local community. So can you talk
a little bit about the difference between the preferred route
and what you call the northern route, and discuss the
difference in the impacts to the physical environment by going
through the route underneath the conservation area, as proposed
in the bill, compared to the impacts in the alternate route
that would go underneath and through the city of Henderson.
What are we talking about here?
Mr. Entsminger. Sure. Well, for the southern alignment and
for impacts within the National Conservation Area specifically,
the only time we need to be inside the conservation area is to
do some boreholes ahead of the tunneling underneath the
conservation area. We have already done some of these boreholes
outside of the NCA, and the equipment is airlifted in. It is a
very small footprint, about the size of this red carpet in
front of us. And we have before and after pictures that have
been submitted as part of my written testimony, and the after
pictures show--I would challenge anyone to go out and find the
six-inch borehole after the restoration has been done. There is
literally no impact within the National Conservation Area to
the surface.
Senator Cortez Masto. And you have experience with doing
boreholes, correct? I mean, you have done it successfully and
have experience around this so you can really identify how you
would mitigate any damage to the environment and what that
process would look like and whether it would be successful or
not.
Mr. Entsminger. Absolutely. We have significant tunneling
experience in this exact same geology. Our tunneling experience
is probably best exemplified by the completion of the third
intake, which is a three-mile tunnel underneath Lake Mead. When
we were doing that tunnel, our tunnel boring machine
encountered pressures of up to 17 bar, which is 35,000 pounds
per foot. For frame of reference, when England and France built
the Chunnel, the highest pressures they saw were 10 bar. So
less than two-thirds of the pressures that we faced under Lake
Mead is what they saw in the English Channel. So we have
extensive tunneling experience. And frankly, going through
solid rock underneath the Conservation Area is going to be
relatively simple compared to some of the projects we have
undertaken in the past.
Senator Cortez Masto. And the alternative, if you would
talk a little bit on that, because this actually goes through
major populated areas----
Mr. Entsminger. Yes.
Senator Cortez Masto [continuing]. And the impact it would
have to those. Could you talk a little bit about it?
Mr. Entsminger. Sure. Well, I mentioned the 50-foot
trenches down major roadways. Those will literally close
businesses for years at a time. They will mandate detours
around the entrances to emergency rooms at several hospitals.
As you are aware, St. Rose Parkway is the heart of Henderson's
medical district. Major regional parks will be turned into
staging areas where pipeline segments will take those parks out
of commission for seven to eight years so that we can dig the
trenches and tunnel through the parts of the city that we feel
comfortable that we can tunnel through without impacting major
infrastructure.
So it will have close to a decade of significant economic
and human impact by going to the north.
Senator Cortez Masto. And you talked a little bit about how
by going through the southern route, through Sloan Canyon, you
would save $200 million, but you would also save economic
impact to those businesses had you chosen the other route. In
other words, by shutting down those businesses that are going
through the middle of town, you are really having a negative
impact on their businesses, right? So that is going to cost
millions of dollars, I would imagine, to those businesses if we
are having to shut them down to put a necessary redundant pipe
through the middle of town.
Mr. Entsminger. Absolutely. The socioeconomic impacts of
going to the north far outweigh, as I described, the de minimis
impacts of going to the south.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
Director McConkie, I would like to start with you. Thanks
again for the vital work you do in managing SITLA. SITLA, of
course, is something that provides a vital lifeline for a
number of critical services in the State of Utah, including and
especially public education. Optimal land management allows us
to not only be good stewards of the land, but also
simultaneously promote and create sustainable economic growth
opportunities, which, of course, benefits the public interest.
Land exchange of this magnitude, of the sort that we are
talking about in Utah, is certainly a delicate process that
involves listening to all the relevant stakeholders and
implementing their recommendations while trying to strike
balance and compromise along the way in a way that does not
derail the deal. Can you just explain briefly to the Committee
the stakeholder-driven process that went into creating this
consensus legislation and how it would benefit Utah?
Ms. McConkie. Thank you.
Yes, we have gone through a long process of outreach. We
have spent quite a bit of time, especially in San Juan County,
which is the county that, of course, the majority of this land
is coming out of. We have actually kept about a third of the
land that would be traded into within the boundary of San Juan
County, and that is the heaviest we have ever gone into one
single county. And this would be the sixth major land exchange
Utah has done, and that is the heaviest we have ever stayed in
a county. We have done public open houses where we had people
of all backgrounds--residents, you know, members sort of on
both sides of the political aisle who attended and we were able
to have some really great listening sessions.
We worked with local county commissioners, and they
actually were very instrumental in helping us to understand the
needs of their communities and what they really wanted to see
and what economic development could come out of this exchange,
and we listened very closely to that. We also listened to
industry, and we have a lot of internal experts within our
agency, all of whom added to help us figure out what targets
would best serve as beneficiaries and also help with local
economic development.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Now, as you know, San Juan County, which is Utah's poorest
county, was hit particularly hard by the designation of the
Bears Ears National Monument, and the vast majority of the
parcels that SITLA is trading out of come from San Juan County.
This process has caused some frustration, understandably so,
but it is clear that SITLA has gone way above and beyond the
call of duty to identify and trade into new parcels in San Juan
County, parcels that have maximal economic development
potential. Can you speak to this process a little bit, and that
feature in particular--how the exchange lands were selected and
how the proposed exchange is likely to affect the local economy
in San Juan County?
Ms. McConkie. Yes, well, these lands that we currently have
in San Juan County within the boundaries of Bears Ears are
scattered parcels that have had limited historical revenue to
the trust--about $80,000 a year is what we make out of about
136,000 acres of land. And really, none of that money goes
directly to the local communities. That's going directly to the
trust. This is an opportunity to take those scattered lands,
block them up, move them into other parts of the county where--
we have done some Utah Geological Survey work--and these are
areas with higher mineral potential and mineral development
potential.
So you know, as you said, San Juan County has struggled
economically, and without this exchange we don't see anything
changing. The lands would stay where they are. This gives an
opportunity for these lands to be blocked up, for there to be
mineral development and real estate development, and we have
worked very closely with the county commission and with others
in the area to try to identify lands that can really help them
with that.
Senator Lee. Now, if SITLA pulls out of the boundaries of
the monument, some worry that access to the land within the
monument could somehow be threatened. Ranchers have relied on
the checkerboard patch/quilt nature of the SITLA parcels over
the years in order to place grazing assets and water features.
How will valid permits and reliance interests like these be
affected by this land exchange?
Ms. McConkie. We have worked very closely with ranchers and
livestock producers in the area. We know that this is a
difficulty for them. We have also worked very hard with BLM,
and they have been great partners in this. We have actually
come to agreements that there will be preference rights that
BLM--that is in the MOU for permittees that are currently on
lands that would become state lands, and that--I'm sorry, state
lands that would become federal lands, and we have also agreed
to have two terms of no competition, vice versa. We have worked
very hard to get improvements in place--water improvements in
place for these livestock producers and feel that we have tried
to listen as much as we can. We understand this is difficult
for them, but feel like we have really put some protections in
place, and we each have agreed to assume the obligations of the
other as we are taking any of these valid, existing rights.
Senator Lee. How about water rights? Same thing?
Ms. McConkie. Water rights--they would pass to the other
party, but yes, that is something we have been looking at very
closely and there are quite--we had a bunch of wells that we
already had applications when we started the negotiation
process and those--many of those have been drilled. We worked
with BLM to identify the correct places for them. It helps
disperse cattle, and they are actually a very small footprint,
but we worked closely with producers and with BLM on those
issues.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much. My time is expired. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cortez Masto. Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Madam Chair, thank you.
Deputy Chief French, the Forest Service determined the
Middle Fork Judith Wilderness Study Area was unsuitable for
wilderness over 30 years ago, and then again in the fall of
2021. Could you briefly talk about what led to this
determination and what public input there was in that process?
Mr. French. Sure, thank you for the question, Senator.
The Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest currently went
through a forest plan revision, and so they followed the
processes that are outlined in our 2012 planning rule. So
essentially, what they do is they go through the entire
national forest and they first inventory lands that have the
potential to become wilderness and then they evaluate those.
And it goes through a very extensive public process to make
that evaluation, both in areas that we would recommend, and in
areas that were currently part of the wilderness study area.
Those then go through a set of alternatives for the forest plan
revision and then the decision that comes out of that, which
again is probably--in this case, it was a three-to-four-year
process, based on what we heard from the public and that
extensive evaluation about if those lands are actually suitable
is what we make our recommendations based on.
Senator Daines. Thank you. There has just been, I think,
some misinformation back home from some who suggest there isn't
a public process going through this, and obviously, there is,
as you just so well-articulated. Some people have the
misconception that by removing the wilderness study designation
we are removing all protections. Could you explain what
protections will remain in place after this area is returned to
general management?
Mr. French. The forest plan in their recommendations, in
this case for removing of the wilderness study area,
essentially would keep in place protections that are consistent
with backcountry and roadless type management. So what that
means specifically is that it's not suitable for commercial
timber harvest. It is managed more for broad-scale, large-scale
conservation and for primitive backcountry uses.
Senator Daines. Yes. I hope the folks back home who have
been fighting some of this hear that, because there are just a
lot of really strong protections in place once the WSA
designation would be removed.
Assistant Director Heinlein, the Bureau of Land Management
reaffirmed that the Hoodoo Mountain Wilderness Study Area and
the Wales Creek Wilderness Study Area did not meet the criteria
for lands with wilderness characteristics just three years ago
in the revision of the Missoula Resource Management Plan, but
in your testimony you say that the recommendation for release
is over 30 years old. Can you describe the five-year
collaborative process that went into the revision of the
Missoula Resource Management Plan and why you don't consider
this process and the public input that was included to be a
reaffirmation of the original recommendation?
Mr. Heinlein. Thank you for the question, Senator.
In the 2021 Missoula RMP revision that you mention, it's
explicitly stated in the RMP that, and I will quote,
``designating lands as wilderness or removing the wilderness
study area designations is outside the BLM's authority and was
beyond the scope of this revision.'' Therefore, the resource
management plan did not make any determinations as to whether
any wilderness study areas were indeed unsuitable for
wilderness. However, as you have noted, when you talked about
the Forest Service WSAs, the RMP did, however, outline
alternative management for wilderness study areas should they
be released by Congress in the future.
Senator Daines. And so, I mean, I realize that the buck
stops with Congress in terms, ultimately, of whether or not we
release it or move into wilderness study but the Forest Service
makes recommendations on either suitable or not. You are saying
BLM doesn't?
Mr. Heinlein. The suitability determinations that were made
in 1992 and 1993 are the recommendations that stand today.
Senator Daines. Okay, they still stand today then.
Mr. Heinlein. Yes.
Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
Deputy Chief French and Assistant Director Heinlein as
well, fire season continues. How might returning these areas to
general management improve your ability to proactively manage
and to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires?
We'll start with Mr. French.
Mr. French. Given the time here, I will kind of land it in
two places. It changes the approaches you use with suppression
of fires, using what we call MIST-type techniques. That can
change if the fire is getting out of control, and it changes
our ability for mechanical treatments. When it is wilderness,
we primarily rely on prescribed fire as a way to reduce
wildland fire risk in wilderness areas versus other areas where
we have a broader set of tools available to us.
Senator Daines. Mr. Heinlein.
Mr. Heinlein. Yes, similar to what Mr. French described, we
would apply the same suite of tools, the same minimum impact
suppression techniques that were mentioned. I would also
mention that in the case of these two wilderness study areas
that are the topic of the BLM lands in this discussion, if
Congress were to release them and they were to become
backcountry conservation areas or areas of critical
environmental concern, as the Missoula Resource Management Plan
prescribes, the suppression tactics would be similar to as they
are today. It would be the same standard.
Senator Daines. Deputy Chief French, last question. The
roadless rule limits timber harvest and mining substantially,
but does allow access to restoration work and habitat
improvement work for threatened and endangered species. Can you
discuss what this means for WSAs when they are returned to
general management?
Mr. French. So if they are contained within areas that were
covered administratively by our roadless rule, what the
roadless rule does is prohibit commercial timber harvest, which
means you can't rotate and manage the timber towards on a
commercial basis. It does not prevent you from using mechanical
means or timber harvest techniques to reduce wildland fuel
loading to create broader restoration needs. Let's say you are
protecting a source water, watershed or for thinning or
something that is needed to protect a critical species. It just
limits you from managing it as essentially a commercially based
timber harvest stand.
Senator Daines. But thinning would be allowed there, and
from what you talked about, as a way to improve habitat?
Mr. French. Yes.
Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
all for your time and your service. I wanted to take a moment
and just ask Mr. French, just because we were on firefighting,
and this isn't reflected to a specific bill, but I had to get
into a long discussion, which has led to several other
discussions with amateur fire theorists around the Smokey the
Bear issues--you know, have we made our forests more
susceptible? But I also read 20 years ago a book called the Big
Burn, by Timothy Egan, that talks about the fire of 1910, I
believe.
Mr. French. Right.
Senator Hickenlooper. Long before Smokey came into--as a
matter of fact, the cause of Smokey the Bear and the National
Forest Service by most accounts. Anyway, so at that time there
had been no--all natural burns had been going through, and yet
they had this pernicious drought and had a fire that was
literally unlike anything we have even seen today. How does
that get explained in terms of modern fire theory?
Mr. French. Well, I mean, okay, I really appreciate the
question because, I mean, I think sometimes we make these
issues too black and white. The reality is that most western
forests, especially dry forests, burned in a regular fashion
and there were periods where you might have significant
drought, such as the time that led up to the Big Burn in
Montana that created large-scale fires and large-scale
devastation. It probably wasn't felt as much because you didn't
have as much development and urbanization as we do today.
That's one of the significant things that changed. We live in
much more concentrated centers in and around our forests than
we did before. We have been very successful at suppressing
fires. We suppress 98 percent of our fires in the first 24
hours--actually, it might be the first 48 hours, but it's one
of those two.
But that has had this other effect, and that is that
forests, especially forests that had frequent fire cycles--most
of your Sierras, a lot of the Rockies, especially ponderosa-
dominated forests, not necessarily some of those places you
might find in Alaska--but they have grown and grown and grown.
Forests that normally would have been thinned by fires that
typically may have had, you know, 40 to 60 trees per acre now
have 400 to 600 trees per acre. So when fires burn now, they
burn at intensities that take out everything. If you add
climate change--climate change amplifies the effect of our own
management that has created today's conditions and that is
resulting in a wildfire crisis.
Senator Hickenlooper. Got it. I appreciate that.
Mr. French. You're welcome.
Senator Hickenlooper. Someday I will chase you down and we
will have a long--you know, as a Governor for eight years, and
we had several of the worst wildfire seasons in the history of
the state, and it is, obviously, a multivariate equation and
not easy, but that is for another time.
Mr. French. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. You bet. Thank you and thank you for
your service.
Mr. Heinlein, over the course of 15 years, we have had
counties, farmers, whitewater advocates, conservation groups,
water managers, and the Ute Mountain Utes, down in the
southwest corner of Colorado, all working together to create
the Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special
Management Area Act, which you have heard a little bit about
already from Senator Bennet. He has been engaged in the efforts
to develop the bill, and I am glad to join him in co-
sponsorship with him and support the legislation today.
I think it really is a bill that strikes a balance,
protecting close to 70,000 acres of public lands in Colorado,
including some of that beautiful Red Rock Country that is all
along the Dolores River--most of the Dolores River. And this
bill also respects and protects historic water rights and other
historic uses. The broadly supported solutions in the bill
offer a perfect example of Coloradans from across various
interests, across parties, coming together to share--the word I
always used to use is topophilia--a love of place that really
helps make our state and so much of the West so beautiful.
Can you tell me more about how the NCA designation actually
is going to help the BLM manage these lands and how the BLM
would continue to work with local stakeholders that have helped
get us here?
Mr. Heinlein. Sure, thank you for the question.
Maybe I will just start with the second piece first. So you
know, broadly, the BLM recognizes the importance of locally
crafted conservation solutions, and focuses on conservation and
recreation areas on BLM-managed public lands and waters. And we
believe that is the most effective and enduring conservation
strategy considering the priorities, needs, and the
perspectives of the families in all of the communities and
interests that you mentioned. So absolutely, we find over and
over those are the best and most enduring solutions. So we
certainly support that in how this bill has been developed.
Specifically, the National Conservation Area designation on
BLM-managed lands would enhance our ability to manage many of
the resources that you touched on--just the setting, the Red
Rock Canyon setting, with the ponderosa pines within it, which
is so unique in that landscape, the broader landscape, when you
pop up out of the canyon into the working farmlands. It makes
it so unique. And specifically, some of the other conservation
values--the fisheries, the whitewater rafting, the industry of
that, the recreational use of that. Those are just a couple of
examples that this bill and the designation would really help
and enhance this with our management of.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you very much. I yield
back.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Senator Lee and I have a couple more questions. I think one
each to ask, and I will start.
First of all, Mr. Heinlein, Mr. French, thank you. Thank
you for being attentive to the 17 bills that are before us. Can
I get a commitment from both of you that you would be willing
to follow up on some of the technical assistance you provided
in assistance for several of the bills, including the three of
mine that are introduced?
Mr. Heinlein. Absolutely, for the Bureau of Land
Management, you have our full commitment.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. French. Same.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Mr. Heinlein, let me ask you this question, and this has to
do with S. 1622, which is the bill I introduced to end
speculative oil and gas leasing. In BLM's guidance for
implementing the Inflation Reduction Act's oil and gas leasing
reforms, BLM's criteria for evaluating lease nominations would
take into account potential for development when determining
which lands to offer for lease, with preference given to those
lands with high potential. In April, however, BLM appeared
ready to offer tens of thousands of acres for lease that meet
the criteria for rejection. Fortunately, several low-potential
parcels were removed from consideration and will not be offered
in the upcoming lease sale.
My question to you is, how is BLM using its authorities to
curb that speculative leasing and avoiding leasing of lands
with low or no oil and gas potential, and do you expect the
forthcoming rule to more concretely disqualify low and no-
potential lands from being offered for lease?
Mr. Heinlein. Thank you for the question.
On this particular question, Chair Cortez Masto, I
represent the National Conservation Lands portfolio of the
Bureau of Land Management, and I would be very happy to delve
into your question a little more thoroughly and give you a
proper answer for the record on that. I know we have been
working on policy within the Bureau on our oil and gas leasing
program, and I would be happy to check in with my counterparts
and get you a proper answer.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
And before I give this to Senator Lee, let me just make one
statement on S. 1760, which is the Apex Area Technical
Corrections Act. Literally, I was just out there. I was home at
Apex, and here's the challenge, and this is all we are asking
is, as we develop the infrastructure out there, the way the law
is currently written, every individual business has to seek a
permit for the same right-of-way, whether they are laying pipe
or they are putting fiber down there. And so, you are asking
every individual business to seek the same permit from BLM. So
the goal here is to allow either the city of North Las Vegas or
the association to actually build out that infrastructure, get
those permits to build out the infrastructure to bring it to
the businesses, instead of having each individual business go
through that process, which has caused a delay in the build-out
of that industrial park.
So that is really the intent here, and I look forward to
working with you on that legislation as well.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you. I will be as quick as I can. Just a
couple of questions.
First, Director McConkie, it's hard to fully evaluate any
bill without assessing the meaningful benefits that come from
the bill. And each year, the SITLA Trust Fund distributes
millions of dollars to support public schools and some other
institutions across Utah. How will this exchange, in
particular, further that mission?
Ms. McConkie. Thank you for the question.
It allows us to block up land that, due to its scattered
nature or the location in more remote areas with less
development potential, it allows us to block that up and really
be able to generate revenue to the extent that we should be
generating revenue. It allows us to utilize that land the way
it was intended, and it helps us, but as we have also talked
about, it helps economic development in some of these rural
communities. As you mentioned in your opening statement, more
than the majority of land in Utah is actually owned by the
Federal Government, and when you look at rural Utah, when you
take out the Wasatch Front, which is the most heavily
populated, it is even a much higher number than that. San Juan
County only has about six percent of the land that is in
private ownership.
So this is an opportunity for the schoolchildren of the
state to make money, as these lands were intended to do, and it
also allows local economic development. It puts us into areas
where we can look at renewable energy projects, oil and gas,
critical minerals, real estate development, all of those
things, they were--these targets--a lot of time was spent
figuring out, working with industry, working with experts,
working with local communities, figuring out what would be best
for us and for these local communities.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
And Dr. Heinlein, I have one question for you as well.
Thank you for being here and testifying today.
The State of Utah has identified some plots of land that
would be appropriate for conveyance from a number of locations
from the BLM to the state to provide for more adequate
management. A number of these parcels are either placed
entirely within, or alternatively directly adjacent to some of
our state parks, including Antelope Island State Park and
Wasatch Mountain State Park. These plots would be better
managed by the Utah Department of Natural Resources, as the
land surrounding the parcels is already designated as a state
park and managed well, as all of our state parks are. This
would allow the streamlining of maintenance of land management
to state agencies who can be much more responsive with unique
needs.
It also seems to me that the conveyances would be a win-win
for Utah and the Federal Government. It benefits both parties.
It would allow the state to take the lead on resource
management, such as maintenance and wildfire management, in
places where the state is already operating, while allowing the
Federal Government to focus on more pressing land management
objectives that only it can perform. Now, in your testimony,
you talked about the land management difficulties that BLM
deals with because of the federal ownership of these isolated
parcels within Antelope Island State Park and near Wasatch
Mountain State Park. Could you speak to some of those land
management challenges and what they are?
Mr. Heinlein. Certainly, I would be happy to speak to
those, Senator. And I would like to say to open that,
obviously, and it is reflected in our testimony that the BLM
does support this bill for many of the reasons that you just
described. Some of the scattered parcels--they just present a
management challenge, in fact, in trying to, you know, perform
some type of federal management action, given the fact of the
adjacent, in this case, state ownership, or in many other
cases, private ownership, which can complicate and add to the
complexity of actually performing actions on those parcels of
land. So we do view this as a win-win situation, as you
described, and are fully supportive.
Senator Lee. Great. Thank you. I look forward to working
with BLM and the Forest Service on the implementation language
of the bill and hope we can work together on a solution that
solves these management issues. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
And once again, I want to thank the witnesses. Thank you
for appearing here today. Thank you for traveling here. Thank
you always for being responsive.
Members of the Committee may submit additional questions in
writing, and if so, we will ask you to submit answers for the
record. Committee members will have until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow to
submit additional questions for the record, and we will keep
the hearing record open for two weeks to receive any additional
comments.
Thank you again, and the Subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]