[Senate Hearing 113-28]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-28
CURRENT PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND
MINING BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS,
AND MINING
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 27 S. 28
S. 159 S. 241
S. 255 S. 256
S. 258 S. 312
S. 327 S. 340
S. 341 S. 342
S. 353 S. 360
S. 366 S. 368
S. 447 S. 609
S. 736 S. 757
__________
APRIL 25, 2013
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-302 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
Joshua Sheinkman, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
MARK UDALL, Colorado DEAN HELLER, Nevada
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
Ron Wyden and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 9
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 5
Connell, Jamie, Acting Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 34
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator From New Mexico.............. 10
Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator From Nevada...................... 11
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 13
Lee, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Utah........................... 13
Manchin, III Hon. Joe, U.S. Senator From West Virginia........... 1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 15
Pena, Jim, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 19
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada....................... 3
Udall, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator From Colorado..................... 17
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 5
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 69
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 73
CURRENT PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013
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 2:34 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST
VIRGINIA
Senator Manchin. The committee will come to order.
I'd like to welcome everybody to the Subcommittee on Public
Lands and Forests and Mining. This is my first committee
meeting as a Subcommittee Chairman. I appreciate very much
having my friend, John Barrasso, here also.
This is my first meeting as the chairman of subcommittee.
It's clear just from today's agenda that the subcommittee will
be actively involved in many Federal land management issues
that are vitally important to Senator's home States, not just
in the West, but throughout the Nation. I know the key to being
able to successfully consider the large number of bills that
will come before the subcommittee this Congress is being able
to reach bipartisan support as much as possible.
Toward that end, I look forward to working closely with
Senator Barrasso, the subcommittee's ranking member, as well as
with the other members of the committee.
This afternoon the subcommittee will consider 20 bills most
of which were also, the committee--before the committee last
Congress and in a few cases the Congress before that. Because
we already have a legislative record for most of the bills we
are following a more streamlined hearing format today. The
purpose of this hearing is simply to update the hearing record
and allow committee members another opportunity to ask any
questions they may have.
We have a lot to cover this afternoon. In addition to
statements from committee members our Majority Leader is with
us today, Senator Reid, from Nevada and our Chairman of
Finance, Senator Baucus, from Montana, asked to speak in
support of their bills. We have 2 witnesses testifying on
behalf of the Forest Service and Interior Department.
I understand that many of these bills have considerable
support and are non-controversial while others are more
complicated and may be more controversial. But I'd like to
emphasize that my commitment to continue working with the bill
sponsors to try and get these bills ready for full committee
consideration. While I know there may be issues of concern on
both sides, there's been a lot of hard work from the bill
sponsors and others to get these bills where they are today.
So we'll do our best to try and address any concerns to
move forward.
At this time I'd like to recognize my friend, Senator
Barrasso, for his opening statement.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
have a statement. But with your permission I do look forward to
working with you in this capacity.
With your permission we may want to invite the 2 Senators,
I know their time is limited. Perhaps I can give my statement
after they've completed theirs.
Senator Manchin. Thank you very much for that
consideration.
With that, Majority Leader, Senator Reid.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Senator Barrasso, you're very kind. Thank you
very much.
I've already apologized to my senior companion here,
Senator Baucus. I'm going to take just a short period of time.
I've already apologized to him.
The State of Nevada is a huge State, area wise. Eighty-
seven percent of the State of Nevada is owned by the Federal
Government. No other State compares to that.
I sponsored the reintroduction of Lyon County Economic
Development Conservation Act with my friend, Dean Heller and
the rest of the Nevada Congressional Delegation. Lyon County
Economic Development Conservation Act would allow the city of
Yerington, Nevada in partnership with Nevada Copper Development
12,500 acres of land surrounding the already operating Pumpkin
Hollow mine site that is located now on private land. The bill
would also designate about 50,000 acres as a wilderness area,
Wovoka, named after the great Indian, Wovoka. The bill would
provide a huge positive impact for Lyon County.
Nevada has been hit hard by the economic downturn. No State
in the Union has come close to the economic problems we've had
in Nevada. For 20 years we led the Nation in economic vitality.
For the last 4 or 5 years we've been at the other end of the
spectrum.
We've led the Nation in unemployment until just recently.
We led the Nation in foreclosures until just recently.
Difficult time.
No part of Nevada, though, has been hurt worse than the
area about which I'm talking now. As we speak Lyon County has
15 percent unemployment. That is 50 percent of Lyon County
school children qualify for free or reduced lunch programs.
Yerington is about 70 miles south of Reno. The city of
Yerington would be allowed under this legislation to purchase
10,400 acres of lands surrounding their current operation. The
City would partner with Nevada Copper to expand their operation
resulting in hundreds of new jobs.
Now, Mr. President, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I've indicated
that Yerington is economically depressed. This is a great shot
in the arm. When I first started running State wide in Nevada
in 1970 there was another vital part of that economy it was an
Anaconda mine, copper mine. It's there now, but it's only the
big, empty pit. We've been trying to reclaim that for the last
15 or 20 years.
This is badly needed in Yerington, Lyon County, but all
over the State of Nevada. That's why I was a little
disappointed this morning that an interview yesterday with a
Reno newspaper I said that I would hope that they would be
hiring Nevada people to do this work. In the paper I read today
that they criticized me for saying that. Saying well half the
people we've hired already are from Nevada. Half the people
shouldn't be from Nevada, they should all be from Nevada.
We have the highest unemployment until just the last couple
months in the entire State. We've got people who can do any
kind of work, craftsmen that can do anything. No one can
criticize the fact that we don't have mining. We have the
largest gold mining operations in the entire country. We're the
third largest producer of gold in the world, the State of
Nevada.
So I would hope that the people here, they're going to get
this legislation and we're going to pass it. But I would hope
that they would look to Nevada and Nevada employees to do their
work. This is a real important piece of legislation. It
protects natural lands that are important to the people of
Nevada.
As I've indicated Wovoka Wilderness Area is named in honor
of the Native American spiritual leader, the father of the
Ghost Dance, who was born and raised in the area. A cultural
and natural resource hero, worthy of a high level of
protection, so their children and grandchildren can enjoy the
beauty for generations. It's a wonderful area on the Walker
River system.
I can't stress enough how very, very important this
legislation is for preserving beautiful lands and also
releasing lands that can be used to their best use and for a
mine. This is terribly needed. I repeat for the third time.
Briefly, I'd also like to just put in a good work for the
Pine Forest Recreation Enhancement Act which is also on your
agenda for today. This creates 20,000 acres of pine forest
wilderness. I would just acknowledge that my Republican
colleague in the House is the person that's pushing this more
than anyone else.
It's something that he believes in. I believe in. It would,
I want to stress the importance of the local effort that went
into crafting this bill led by Congressman Amodei. The Nevada
State Legislature endorsed both these pieces of legislation. I
would hope that you will report in both of these favorably.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator
From Nevada
ON S. 159 AND S. 345
Thank you Chairman Manchin and Senator Barrasso for the opportunity
to address your subcommittee about our bipartisan proposals to create
new opportunities for economic development and conservation of Nevada's
public lands.
This January, I cosponsored the reintroduction of the Lyon County
Economic Development and Conservation Act with my colleague Senator
Heller and the rest of the Nevada congressional delegation.
The Lyon County Economic Development and Conservation Act would
allow the City of Yerington, in partnership with Nevada Copper, to
develop approximately 12,500 acres of land surrounding the already
operating Pumpkin Hollow mine site. The bill would also designate
approximately 48,000 acres of public lands as the Wovoka Wilderness
Area, while protecting the rights of ranchers who earn their living on
the land.
This bill will provide for a huge positive economic impact to Lyon
County, the Nevada county that was hardest hit by the economic
recession. Lyon has a current unemployment rate of 14.6%--five points
higher than in the rest of Nevada. This year, over 50% of Lyon County's
schoolchildren qualify for free or reduced lunch programs.
The City of Yerington will be allowed to purchase 10,400 acres of
land surrounding Nevada Copper's current Pumpkin Hollow mining
operation. The City will partner with Nevada Copper to expand their
operation, resulting in 500 construction jobs and adding 800 permanent
jobs. These are desperately-needed, good paying mining jobs that should
last for twenty years or more. I encourage Nevada Copper to use the
local and state labor force to fill these jobs. Lyon County and Nevada
have been hard hit and has the trained labor force to fill these
positions.
This bill also protects natural lands that are important to the
people of Nevada. The Wovoka Wilderness Area, located in the southern
Pine Grove Hills, is named in honor of the Native American spiritual
leader and father of the Ghostdance who was born and raised in the
area. The cultural and natural resources here are worthy of a high
level of protection so that our children and grandchildren can continue
to enjoy them for generations.
Wovoka is home to 13 miles of the East Walker River, multi-colored
canyons, pinyon-juniper forests, seasonal lakes and critical habitat
for the bi-state Sage Grouse. The land also is rich in ancient human
history. The archaeological resources include petroglyphs, ritual sites
and a prehistoric village site.
This bill is the result of a collaborative process that took into
consideration the concerns of local officials, industry, ranchers,
conservationists, and other interested parties in Lyon County.
I also would like to take the opportunity to say a few words about
another bill you are hearing testimony on today: the Pine Forest
Recreation Enhancement Act, which creates the 26,000 acre Pine Forest
Wilderness Area. I reintroduced this legislation this February, again
with the support of the entire Nevada congressional delegation.
I want to stress the tremendous local effort that went into
crafting this bill. This wilderness proposal was presented by the
county commission to our delegation with almost unanimous support from
the community. The Nevada State Legislature endorsed the exceptionally
collaborative process that went into developing this bill.
The Pine Forest area is an incredible remote destination for
hunters, anglers, hikers and campers. It has vital habitat for a number
of animals, including the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout-which is native only
to Nevada. This is a treasured place for Nevada families and should be
protected for generations to come.
I look forward to working with the Senate Energy Committee to move
both of these bills forward.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here with you today. I
request that my statement be included in the record.
The Chairman. Chairman Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Senator Wyden.
The Chairman. If I could just interrupt very briefly while
Leader Reid is here and Chairman Baucus is here. I think they
both have done very good work here. I just want to assure them
that it's my intent to work very closely with Chairman Manchin,
with Senator Murkowski. Your bills, in my view, are high
priority legislation. We are going to work very closely with
both of you to get them out of this Committee and get them out
quickly.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much.
Senator Manchin. Thank you.
Any questions to the Leader?
If not, Mr. Leader, thank you so much for your----
Senator Reid. Heller better not ask me any questions.
[Laughter.]
Senator Manchin. You're carrying water today for him.
The Chairman. Chairman Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Senator Wyden.
The Chairman. Could I take about 2 minutes and just speak
very briefly on the bills that you're looking at today with
respect to Oregon. I can do it in about 2 to 3 minutes.
Senator Manchin. Senator, thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to touch very briefly on the Oregon Treasures
legislation that you're considering here today. They go right
to the heart of the strategy I've tried to advance for our
State. We've got to get people back to work in the woods in my
home State. That's what we have focused on with respect to
getting the harvest up. We think we can do that consistent with
the environmental laws.
We also want to protect our treasures. We want to do it for
2 reasons.
One, they're special places.
But also the economics of public lands have changed and
outdoor recreation, which is something we can promote with this
legislation, is also an economic winner.
Americans now spend $646 billion a year in outdoor
recreation. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates its
spending results in 141,000 direct Oregon jobs. So we have a
host of challenges in the West.
I know Chairman Baucus works through many of these same
issues as well and has been so helpful to us. We've got to get
people back to work in the woods. That means getting the
harvest up.
We also want to protect our treasures. They're for our
kids. But particularly because of the importance of recreation
in places like Montana and Oregon, Western State Senators all
see the same thing.
Thank you for your willingness, Mr. Chairman, to let me
make this brief statement and for the good work you're doing
here in the subcommittee.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator, for that and for your
input on these two bills. As you know we'll be taking them
seriously.
At this time we have Chairman Baucus. Thank you so much for
coming. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very happy to
see the chairman of the full committee here and Senator
Barrasso, all the rest of my friends.
This is pretty important to me and to the State of Montana
and, I think, to the Nation. This is support of S. 255. What is
it? It's the North Fork Watershed Protection Act.
Let me read you a quote from John Muir, which I think
applies. He said. ``Everybody needs beauty as well as bread.
Places to play in and pray in where nature may heal and cheer
and give strength of body and soul alike.''
This is one of those places. It's a very, very special
place. I know all members of this committee have special places
in their home States.
Some of them are beaches and mountains or the plains,
whatever they might be. For us in Montana we have several
ourselves, but this is one of them. This is pretty high up
there.
When I first came to the House a few years ago, what 30
some years ago, I immediately realized that one of my major
efforts is going to be to protect, it's called the North Fork
of Flathead River. The North Fork of the Flathead River begins
up in British Columbia. It flows south from British Columbia
and into East alongside of Glacier National Park as it flows
south of Glacier Park. It would be to the east of it into
Flathead Lake.
Flathead Lake is the largest natural freshwater lake west
of the Mississippi, the largest. It's the largest natural
freshwater lake west of the Mississippi. It's pristine.
I don't know now, but for many, many years it's drinkable.
You can drink the water from Flathead Lake. It's that pristine.
It's that clear.
It's also the summer playground for a lot of Montanans, for
a lot of people outside of Montana, who come there in the
summer. It's great skiing in the winter. It's really, really
special.
It's the most intact ecosystem of the contiguous United
States. It's a wide gravel bed river. The North Fork of the
Flathead flows next to tall peaks from British Columbia into
Montana and as I said, feeds the largest natural freshwater
lake west of the Mississippi. That's Flathead Lake.
It drains snow melt from places like Kintler Peak. On this
photograph over to my right Kintler Peak is the tallest peak.
Kintler Peak is in Glacier National Park.
Many times I've backpacked in the summers across Glacier
National Park, 4 or 5 days hike into Kintler Lake. It was upper
Kintler close by and Lower Kintler is just one of the most
special places that one could ever hope to see. It's like
Alaska. It's very, very similar to many places in Alaska.
On the other side of the North Fork run off comes from many
species of trees, lodge pole, spruce trees. Again back into
Glacier National Park. This drainage has the highest vascular
plant diversity and the highest density of large carnivores in
the lower 48. More in Alaska, but in the lower 48 this is the
largest population of large carnivores and vascular plant
diversity.
Silver tipped grizzlies feed on huckleberries, buffalo
berries in this same pristine valley. Native bull trout find
cold water and clean gravel for their reds. It is, I mean, when
you float the North Fork, you're just stunned.
It's so deep. It's so clear. It's running so fast. There's
just so much water. It's hard to find words to describe it.
It's the most important wildlife corridor along the
Canadian border between the Great Plains and the Cascades.
Montanans, very many days, enjoy hunting and fishing there.
Today, about 2 million people visit Glacier National Park every
year, that's about $100 billion in the economy. It supports
1,400 jobs.
One day several years ago it really dawned on me how
important it was to protect this resource. It was in 1976 and I
talked to a couple scientists. One guy was named Jack Stanford
and the other is Rick Howard. They explained to me how all the
mining up in British Columbia, there's coal mining up there,
economic benefits stay in Canada. But some of this coal mined
would be shipped across the ocean over to Canada as coking
coal, but yet all the environmental degradation flowed south.
It was--the water flowed south into Montana and also air
currents that flowed south into Montana.
So what do we do? We thought, without being too involved
here, I put together something called a baseline data study.
They get the baseline data for the whole basin so we could know
the effects whether it's Canadian, whether it's Forest Service
in the United States, whether it's tourism in the United States
or the private sector operations, homeowners along the lake.
That baseline data has helped us realize what we have to do to
protect this resource.
Then what did we do? We went to the Canadians. Said, let's
figure this out together. We signed a compact. Montana did with
British Columbia so that both British Columbia and Montana are
working to protect.
I realize if we're going to show the Canadians we're doing
our part a key here is to withdraw leases, oil and gas leases
in the National Forest there. I mentioned just to the west of
this river. Most of the leases have already voluntarily
withdrawn.
The oil companies said, hey we're not going to find oil and
gas here. We've got a lot of better prospects out in other
parts of the country with fracking, horizontal drilling, you
know, other parts of Montana, other parts of the country. We're
not going to drill here.
So they've voluntarily withdrawn. There are just a few
acres left of National Forest land. This bill provides that
those acres--the bill provides that there be no future leases
in the area.
It doesn't pull the other leases out. It doesn't tell
companies they've got to leave. It just says no future oil and
gas leases in the area. As I said or implied, there's very
little acreage left here anyway because most of the leases have
already been withdrawn. The companies have voluntarily
withdrawn.
So I just urge you, Mr. Chairman and the rest of the
committee, to look very seriously at this. This bill is the one
missing piece. Given all the other efforts we've undertaken in
roughly 30 some years.
I know it's--what I'm next going to say applies to all of
this. I was drawn to public service by the belief that each of
us has a moral obligation that when we leave this place, we're
not here forever. When we leave this place we leave it as good
as shape or in better shape than we found it. Each of us has
that moral obligation.
It's environmental.
It's economic.
It's political.
That's because we're only here for a short period of time
on this Earth. For me, this is one of those areas where we can
be sure that we're leaving this place in as good a shape, maybe
even better shape, because of the protections that we founded.
It's not controversial. Chamber of Commerce supports it. The
entire Montana Congressional Delegation supports it. The two
Democrats in the Senate, one Republican in the House. It's all
supported.
I just urge this committee to help finish this one little
piece. That's going to show to Montanans and to all those who
enjoy Glacier National Park, that hey, we're doing something
that makes sense here. I strongly urge the committee's support
for this legislation.
Senator Manchin. Any questions to Senator Baucus?
If I could just ask one question very quickly. Are there
people trying to develop or encroach in that land or are you
just wanting to make sure it's protected so it doesn't happen?
Senator Baucus. No. No. It's very interesting when I first
traveled up to North Fork in the late 1970 you could see the
remnants of old rigs. I mean, they're old. I mean, it's about
40 years old. There's just nothing left.
But no, there's no activity. There's none whatsoever.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Just to follow up on that. So there's no
current activity in terms of production. There are still some
areas that are held, that the leases are held. Most have been
relinquished.
Of those that have not been relinquished are you aware of
any interest in exploration or potential production?
Senator Baucus. Nope. No. When I say most, I think it's 70,
maybe 75 percent of the leases have been voluntarily
relinquished.
There are many leases. I've talked to the company, one
major company. There are a couple, 3 companies, but one major
company a couple times. They just like to keep it. To be honest
they want to be compensated if they are withdrawn or they want
to trade.
But I say to them, you know, I appreciate that. But
everyone else in your industry, most everybody else in your
industry has voluntarily relinquished. I asked, are they
exploring? Are they drilling? Are they looking? No. No. They're
not. I'm not, again, this bill does not apply to those leases.
This bill just says that no future leases would be available in
the National Forest. That's all this one says.
Senator Murkowski. Got it.
Senator Manchin. No future leases.
Senator Murkowski. Got it. I think I need to look at it and
see if it really is as close to Alaska as the picture is, but
maybe have to do a field trip. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Manchin. No, no, I could see it either. Alaska, not
entirely I could see it, but it's special.
Senator Manchin. Any further questions?
Senator, thank you so much for your presentation.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Manchin. A truly special place. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. Thank you.
Senator Manchin. Without further ado what we'll do is
Senator Barrasso you want to have your opening statement and
then we'll ask any members that want to make a statement after
that.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. It
stated a little earlier, I'm so looking forward to working with
you, Senator Manchin, in your new role as Chairman of this very
important subcommittee. I like the new name of the Subcommittee
on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining.
It was nice to have Senator Baucus as well as Majority
Leader Reid here with us today to testify in support of their
bills.
Most of the 20 bills we have on the agenda today have been
considered by this committee in past sessions of Congress
including 2 that I'm co-sponsoring--that I'm sponsoring.
The Grazing Improvement Act, S. 258.
The Good Neighbor Forestry Act, S. 327.
It's hard to comprehend, Mr. Chairman, but the Good
Neighbor Forestry Act, a bipartisan bill, has lingered in this
Committee now for 4 and a half years. The first time I
introduced the bill was July 2008. I'm hopeful that things will
be different this Congress. I hope under Senator Wyden and
Senator Murkowski's leadership we can work together to move
this legislation through committee and see it enacted into law.
I want to point out that bipartisan support of this
Committee. Senators Udall, Lee, Johnson, Heller and Flake have
co-sponsored this legislation. The Good Neighbor Forestry Act
allows the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to
enter into cooperative agreements with States to get work done
on the ground across ownership boundaries.
This cooperative authority isn't new. It has existed for
nearly a decade in 2 States, in Colorado and in Utah.
I am sure we will hear today from the Administration's
witnesses that it is an effective tool to address the
management challenges that we face: reducing wildfire risk,
removing invasive species, preventing insect and disease,
improving watersheds and conserving habitat. These challenges
know no boundary lines and are best tackled through integrated
partnerships that this bill would facilitate.
Good Neighbor Authority is set to expire September 2013 in
Utah and in Colorado. So it's time to prevent Good Neighbor
Authority from expiring in Utah and Colorado and to extend it
to other Western States. Our Western forests have benefit
from--they would benefit from having this tool in the tool box,
this common sense legislation and will advance the all lands
vision for our forests.
The other bill I'd like to just mention briefly, Mr.
Chairman, is the Grazing Improvement Act, S. 258. This bill
would provide needed regulatory certainty to ranching
businesses operating on public lands.
It also provides key tools to the Federal agencies to more
efficiently process the grazing permit renewal work load.
The bill would codify the year to year appropriation rider
language providing for automatic renewal of grazing permits.
These are ones that have been enacted every fiscal year since
2004.
Now as you know, Mr. Chairman, that the agencies are asking
Congress for this rider in the President's budget request for
Fiscal Year 2014. The measure would also extend the term of a
grazing permit from 10 to 20 years and provide continuity for
family ranching operations in the rural communities and
traditions they support.
In addition, the bill provides the agencies with a
categorical exclusion to satisfy NEPA requirements for the
renewal, reissuance or transfer of a grazing permit in certain
rangeland health objectives are met. This categorical exclusion
would reduce the current level of litigation that according to
Mr. Connell's testimony, ``continues to pose significant work
load and resource challenges for the BLM.'' These needed
improvements to the grazing permit process are long overdue.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses on
these bills and all of the bills on the agenda today. I hope
the agencies will testify on these two active management bills
with the same level of enthusiasm and support as the wilderness
bills on the agenda.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask that 3 items be
submitted for the record.
One is the testimony of Robert Skinner, a Grazing
Improvement Act support letter and Western Governors
Association letter to Secretary Vilsack supporting the Good
Neighbor Policies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator.
What we do if anyone has opening statements we'll see if--
start with Senator Heinrich, if you have any opening statement
at all, Senator?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Actually I was going to let Senator
Johnson, if he wants to go first.
Senator Manchin. What I was going to do was go back and
forth as everybody arrived and do it that way, so.
Senator Heinrich. OK. I'll be happy to give mine then.
Senator Manchin. Did you have to go?
Senator Heinrich. OK.
Thank you, Chairman and also Ranking Member Barrasso for
calling this hearing. I want to thank you for including a
number of bills that have been in the works involving New
Mexico for a number of years now.
I wanted to start by just clarifying the continued need for
S. 241, the Rio Grande del Norte legislation. After the
President's designation of the Rio Grande del Norte National
Monument just last month, that designation, I think, was an
incredible recognition of the community's work in Northern New
Mexico. They've been working to give special attention to this
area for several decades now.
The bill that the monument was originally based on which
the subcommittee is considering today does one thing that a
national monument designation by the President cannot do. It
designates 2 areas currently managed as wilderness study areas
as wilderness. I want to thank the subcommittee for considering
consideration of this bill so that we can get the final
management plan in place for this new national monument.
I also wanted to note my support for S. 368, which would
reauthorize FLTFA. FLTFA is an excellent model for public land
management that supports conservation goals as well as economic
development. As a sportsman I especially appreciate FLTFA's
role in protecting critical wildlife habitat. Outdoor
recreation is a critical and growing part of New Mexico's
economy. FLTFA helps us preserve the places that draw visitors
to New Mexico from around the world.
Last, I'm also pleased that the subcommittee is considering
S. 360, the Reauthorization of the Public Lands Service Corps.
S. 609, to convey land in San Juan County, New Mexico.
S. 312, to adjust the boundary of the Carson National
Forest in New Mexico.
I'm an original co-sponsor of all 3 bills and would like to
thank the subcommittee for their consideration.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Heller.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you and certainly do
look forward to working with you and the ranking member on this
subcommittee. When it has to do with public lands as Senator
Reid said, 87 percent of Nevada is owned by the Federal
Government. Public lands and mining, as you can imagine, are 2
huge issues facing the State.
So, anyway, I'd like to speak briefly, if I may, on the
Nevada bills that are before us today.
S. 757 does 2 things.
The first is to allow the city of Mesquite, Nevada and
Lincoln County, Nevada to use the funds in their respective
special accounts that were created over a decade ago for
conservation. Both the city of Mesquite and Lincoln County were
charged with the development and implementation of a multi-
species habitat conservation plan. Unfortunately the BLM is
determined that the lack of the work implementation in the
enabling laws means its special account funds that could have
been used for conservation have been languishing.
I think we can all agree that money is better spent on
protecting habitat on the ground then sitting in special
accounts at BLM.
The second thing S. 757 does is to provide the city of
Mesquite with additional time to purchase land around their
airport. This is necessary because the economic downturn meant
the city had to reprioritize spending. The city still wishes to
purchase the land for long term development. This bill will
allow them to do so.
S. 342, the Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act is
an example of what, I believe, is a wilderness done right bill.
This legislation was developed in order to resolve outstanding
wilderness study areas in Humboldt County. It is a result of a
collaborative community process where all stakeholders who were
given a seat at the table. Legislation will improve recreation
access, provide appropriate, permanent protection in the Pine
Forest range.
This type of collaboration is a model for how public land
designation should be handled. I'm pleased to support this
wilderness legislation.
But there's no more urgent legislation for Nevada than the
Lyon County Economic Development Conservation Act Senator Reid
mentioned, S. 159. I authored this legislation initially to
answer the desperate needs in Lyon County for economic
development and activity. This bill is an excellent example of
the balance between conservation and development.
Currently Lyon County has 14.2 percent unemployment. It is
the highest unemployment rate in the State with the highest
unemployment in the Nation. Both the city and the county have
had to severely cut staff and services. Without this
legislation and the economic activity it will bring, they'll be
forced to cut more essential services.
This bill will convey to the city at fair market value
approximately 12,500 acres of Federal land with no conservation
value surrounding the Pumpkin Hollow project site. Upon
completion of the conveyance, the Pumpkin Hollow project is
estimated to create 800 mining jobs, 500 construction jobs. The
lands conveyed by this bill will also be used for industrial,
recreation and infrastructure purposes that will create sorely
needed jobs and economic development for Yerington.
The bill will also designate the Wovoka Wilderness Area
while protecting the rights and interests of ranchers and
miners who earn their living on the land in the area. The newly
created wilderness will protect habitat and important cultural
resources for generations to come. I'm pleased to have worked
with Senator Reid to find a balance between development and
conservation that will create jobs in Lyon County and beyond.
Again, I want to thank Senator Reid for his support and
help on this. But more importantly, I want to thank his staff.
Between his staff and my staff working together to solve these
issues and these problems, we're going to move Nevada forward.
I look forward to doing that. I urge all my colleagues to
support these important pieces of legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dean Heller, U.S. Senator
From Nevada, on S. 757
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak briefly about the Nevada bills
before us today.
S. 757 does two very simple things. The first is it allows the city
of Mesquite, Nevada and Lincoln County, Nevada to use the funds in
their respective special accounts that were created over a decade ago
for conservation.
Both the City of Mesquite and Lincoln County were charged with the
development and implementation of a multi-species habitat conservation
plan.
Unfortunately, the BLM has determined that the lack of the word
``implementation'' in the enabling laws means that special accounts
funds that could have been used for conservation have been languishing.
I think we can all agree that money is better spent on protecting
habitat on the ground than sitting in special accounts at the BLM.
The second thing S. 757 does is provide the City of Mesquite with
additional time to purchase land around their airport. This is
necessary because the economic downturn meant that the City had to re-
prioritize spending. The City still wishes to purchase the land for
long-term development and this bill will allow them to do so.
S. 342, the Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act, is an
example of what I believe is `wilderness done right.' This legislation
was developed in order to resolve outstanding wilderness study areas in
Humboldt County.
It is the result of a collaborative community process where all
stakeholders were given a seat at the table. The legislation will
improve recreational access and provide appropriate permanent
protection in the Pine Forest Range. This type of collaboration is a
model for how public land designations should be handled and I am
pleased to support this wilderness legislation.
There is no more urgent legislation for Nevada than the Lyon County
Economic Development and Conservation Act. I authored this legislation
initially to answer the desperate need in Lyon County for economic
development and activity.
This bill is an excellent example of balance between conservation
and development.
Currently, Lyon County has 14.2 percent unemployment. It is the
highest unemployment rate in the state with the highest unemployment in
the nation. Both the county and the city have had to severely cut staff
and services and without this legislation and the economic activity it
will bring, they will be forced to cut essential services.
The bill will convey to the city, at fair market value,
approximately 12,500 acres of federal land with no conservation value
surrounding the Pumpkin Hollow project site. Upon completion of the
conveyance, the Pumpkin Hollow Project is estimated to create 800
mining jobs and 500 construction jobs.
The lands conveyed by this bill will also be used for industrial,
recreation, and infrastructure purposes that will create sorely needed
jobs and economic development for Yerington.
The bill will also designate the Wovoka Wilderness Area, while
protecting the rights and interests of ranchers and miners who earn
their living on the land in the area. The newly created wilderness will
protect habitat and important cultural resources for generations to
come.
I am pleased to have worked with Senator Reid to find a balance
between development and conservation that will create jobs in Lyon
County and beyond.
I urge all of my colleagues to support these important pieces of
legislation.
Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Manchin for holding
this hearing. There are 2 bills today that are of particular
interest to South Dakota, the Black Hills Cemetery Act
introduced by my colleague, Senator Thune and myself, and the
Good Neighbor Forestry Act which was introduced by Ranking
Member Barrasso.
The Black Hills Cemetery Act will transfer ownership of 9
historic cemeteries in the Black Hills National Forest to the
local entities that have cared for them for generations. The
current arrangement with special use permits is more suited for
temporary uses of Forest System land. Providing local ownership
of these cemeteries makes a lot better sense for everyone
involved. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
advance this bill.
The Good Neighbor Forestry Act has been explained by my
good friend, Ranking Member Barrasso. The Black Hills is a
perfect example of the need for cooperation among all levels of
government to address major forest health challenges like the
pine beetle. The bill will enhance the cooperative efforts that
are already underway.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Lee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. These
issues are also of great concern to me because most of the land
in my State is owned by the Federal Government, about two-
thirds of it. Managing that amount of land often, nearly
always, requires Federal legislation, even for many parochial
issues.
Consequently hearings like these are critical to what we do
in my home State. So I thank the Senator from West Virginia and
the Administration witnesses that have come here to testify
today.
The Hill Creek Cultural Preservation and Energy Development
Act will resolve a long standing land ownership problem in
Eastern Utah. The legislation, if passed, will resolve this
issue in a manner that benefits the school children of Utah. At
the same time protect culturally significant land located on
the Ute tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.
The Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration or SITLA, as it's known at home, is tasked with
managing its portfolio of State trust lands for the benefit of
K through 12 public schools. The revenues generated by SITLA
are a critical source of funding for public education in Utah.
This legislation will assist SITLA in its goal of ensuring that
Utah schools have the resources needed to provide the best
possible education for Utah's children.
The Ute tribe supports this legislation because it will
help the tribe develop its mineral resources while also
preserving lands of significant cultural value. The bill
presents--prevents the tribe from having to decide between good
paying jobs and the preservation of important tribal lands and
gives the tribe the opportunity to achieve both.
In addition the legislation also ensures that the Federal
Treasury is held harmless by providing that the United States
will receive the same amount of revenue as it would receive if
the Bureau of Land Management managed the land.
S. 27 represents an approach to resource development that
carefully balances the interests of all stakeholders. I urge
the committee to act quickly to move this legislation.
I'd also like to express my support for S. 28, the Y
Mountain Access Enhancement Act. This bill would transfer a
small amount of Forest Service land to Brigham Young University
for the purpose of preserving continued access to the Y, which
to those who haven't been to Provo, Utah, is a large block Y
built into the side of the mountain overlooking the city and
campus of BYU. This bill will benefit both the university and
the local community. I'd ask for quick action by the committee
in approving that.
Thank you.
It's a lovely Y. I'll promise I'll take you there sometime.
Senator Manchin. Is it made with trees or rocks?
Senator Lee. It's rocks. They've been white washed over the
years. They use the more sophisticated version of white wash
recently to make sure that it stayed white.
Senator Manchin. It sounds like quite an investment, I'm
sure
Senator Lee. Yes. It's been there for about 100 years.
Senator Manchin. I understand completely.
Senator Lee. As a third generation BYU Cougar it has a lot
of emotional value.
Senator Manchin. I can tell.
Last but not least is Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to our
ranking member, thank you for the hearing today. Lots of bills
on the calendar which we appreciate. Senator Wyden and I have
been working to figure out the process that we can efficiently
move some of these very important public lands bills through
the committee and with the leadership of the 2 of you, I think
we're making great progress.
I'd like to focus my comments this afternoon on 2 bills
that I'm co-sponsoring. I have 3 before us. But I'm only going
to address 2 of them today.
The first is the Southwest Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization and Jobs Protection Act. We know it as the
Sealaska Lands bill.
There's also a second bill that I call the Small Miners
bill, S. 366, that would reinstate the mining claims of small
miners in Alaska, claims that I strongly believe have been
unjustly taken from them.
But turning first to Sealaska. This is a bill that has been
kicking around the committee here since 2008. I think that
we're close to working out the final few points of contention.
I'd like to think that we can get it wrapped up very, very soon
and pass the bill.
For members of the committee who are new or have not heard
much about the Sealaska provision, it's a pretty simple premise
and purpose. What we're doing here with Sealaska legislation is
to provide for final settlement of outstanding aboriginal land
claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This bill
accomplishes this purpose by conveying approximately 70,050
acres of selected land in Southeast Alaska on the Tongass
National Forest to Sealaska. That's exactly the acreage that
BLM estimates will finalize Sealaska's remaining land
entitlement.
Southeast Alaska's 20,000 native corporation shareholders
have waited 42 years for this settlement. We think that it is
long enough. When the Native Land Claims settlement was passed
40 years ago it was with the understanding we'd get these
conveyances. We would move them through the process. Alaska's
native people would move forward. Unfortunately for the 20,000
natives in Sealaska, they've been, kind of, in this holding
pattern for far, far too long.
Over the past 2 years my staff has worked diligently and I
thank them. I thank all those that they've been working with.
But they've been working well with the Forest Service, with the
staff on the Democratic side here, interested stakeholders,
uninterested stakeholders, people from all over Alaska, to
really sort through the many issues with the bill.
It's not an easy task. Nearly every acre, I would venture
to say, that every acre of the 16.9 million acre Tongass is
precious to someone. But in this process, in this multiyear
process, more than 175 changes have been made.
I think these changes have vastly improved the bill from
the 2008 original. We know that it's not easy to make everyone
happy. But I think that what we have in front of us is fair,
equitable and a workable solution to the complicated land
patterns in Alaska's panhandle.
Although the Forest Service agrees that our bill has come a
long way, there's still a few issues that it wants to work on.
The most significant one raised concerns the Forest Service
Tongass Timber Program. The Forest Service has raised concerns
that settling Sealaska's land claims could affect its plans to
transition timber harvesting in the Tongass from the old growth
to the young growth trees.
Now it's my understanding that to mitigate these concerns
and to help jump start the transition, the Forest Service is
asking that the bill be amended to include a provision
exempting the Forest Service from compliance with culmination
of mean annual increment requirements. As Senator Risch would
understand that as CMAI requirements. These apply to even aged
timber harvest under the National Forest Management Act.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am willing to consider some
flexibility with regards to the CMAI requirements in order to
help the forest make this transition work. But I do ask for
some commitments from the Forest Service to address the needs
of the existing timber industry that's being expected to make
this transition. These existing timber businesses need some
time. They need sufficient timber. They need economic certainty
in order to survive and for this transition to have any chance
of succeeding.
So I do hope that we can reach a compromise on this
outstanding issue that we can all live with that enables the
bill to move forward with the Administration's unqualified
support.
I do have, Mr. Chairman, some letters where folks have been
asked to have them included into the record of variety groups
in the State. They include testimony from Sealaska Corporation,
letters from the Archery Trade Association, the city of Tenakee
Springs, the Point Baker Community Association and the Safari
Club International.
Senator Murkowski. I'd like to say just a couple words here
on the small miner bill. This is S. 366. This is yet another
attempt to try to right a wrong that I really think we should
have been able to resolve some time ago.
Back in 1993 Congress enacted a small miner waiver that
exempted the small miners. Those are those that own 10 claims
or fewer. They were exempted from maintenance fee to keep title
to their claims provided that they performed at least $100 of
assessment work per year on the claims.
In order to get the waiver the miners have to file an
application. If there are any defects in the application the
miners are supposed to be given notice and an opportunity to
cure. Unfortunately BLM has interpreted this waiver as allowing
miners to cure their defects in their applications but only if
these forms or fees are turned in on time. Otherwise the cure
remedy doesn't exist. BLM then moves to extinguish the claims
without appeal.
So I have attempted to solve the problem by making it clear
that the BLM had to notify miners if the applications or fees
weren't received on time. Give the miners 60 days to solve the
defects. This is exactly what Congress thought it was passing
in 1993.
So I offered that fix in the 109th Congress, the 111th,
then the 112th and again this year. It's still being opposed by
BLM. They say that it's just due to the potential notification
costs.
So I'm prepared, given the testimony that the government is
submitting, to amend the bill substantially at mark up to
simply address the claims on a case by case basis. On the other
hand if the BLM can resolve these problems Administratively, I
would certainly encourage it to do so. I understand that also
may be the case with my Cabin Fee bill. Again, if it can be
done without legislation, by all means, let's make it happen
that way.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me just a little extra
time to give my statement and hopefully provide a little
clarity in terms of where we're going with Sealaska. But again,
appreciate the work that you and the ranking member are doing.
Senator Manchin. Thank you very much.
I see that Senator Udall has arrived.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Udall. Mr. Chairman, thank you for agreeing to hold
a hearing on S. 341 which is the San Juan Mountains Wilderness
Act and several other bills that are on the list that are
important to Colorado.
My San Juan Mountains Wilderness bill was first introduced
in 2009 by former Congressman John Salazar. I'd like to express
my appreciation for the extensive effort that John and his
staff made to work with all the stakeholders involved and to
develop the original bill in 2009. The bill would designate
over 33,000 acres of National Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management Land in Southwestern Colorado as wilderness, mostly
through expansions of the existing Lizard Head and Mount
Sneffels wilderness areas.
It would also establish a new area called McKenna Peak,
which includes imposing sand stone cliffs rising 2,000 feet
above the surrounding area. These are important lands that
possess critical wildlife habitat, clean water and other scenic
values. So they are very worthy additions to our national
wilderness preservation system. The bill would also protect
28,000 acres on Sheep Mountain and Naturita Canyon with other
special designations.
Now Mr. Chairman, this is a grass roots bill. By that I
mean it was developed based on the ideas of a lot of local
business people, residents, recreationalists. It protects
existing water rights and it continues existing uses as they
are now such as grazing, established heliskiing on Sheep
Mountain and the Hard Rock 100 which is important and popular
foot race and grueling as well because the 100 stands for a
hundred miles. It does not affect any current legal motorized
or mechanized access.
As I alluded to the bill reflects extensive collaboration
done over several years of local leaders and interested
stakeholders. Because of this community based effort a large
group of citizens, local leaders and other stakeholders from
across Southwestern Colorado have supported my bill including
the Ouray, San Miguel and San Juan, San Juan County
Commissions, the city of Ouray and the Towns of Ophir,
Ridgeway, Mountain Village, Telluride and Norwood. We've also
had groups representing hunters and anglers including the Bull
Moose Sportsmen Alliance, Back Country Hunters and Anglers and
Trout Unlimited to have endorsed this bill.
As I said on a couple cases already there is a long list of
small businesses in the region who support the bill because
they know protecting public lands helps create jobs and draws
new residents, tourists and businesses to the surrounding
communities. This region and I say in fact, much of my State
depends on our public lands not only for recreational
opportunities, hunting and fishing and the scenic vistas that
are so present, all of which are vital to our local economies.
But also we're dependent on these areas for in the way in which
they protect our municipal water supplies and provide clean
air.
Support, therefore, from local businesses is not a
surprise, but it's par for the course in tourism and recreation
dependent economies. The outdoor industry is one of our most
important economic drivers. Wilderness is one of our State's
great economic engines. I'm proud to be able to lead the
efforts on this bill.
Our population by the year 2050 is expected to double. We
need to be proactive so that future generations can experience
the beauty, clean air and water and wildlife that we have
today. I'm proud of our successful work. The past in
designating wilderness at James Peak and in Rocky Mountain
National Park. I'm committed to getting this bill and similar
community driven efforts to the finish line.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for, again, indulging my interest
in this bill. But I wanted to, before I close, briefly express
my strong support for 2 other bills on the agenda today.
The first is my good friend, Senator Barrasso's bill. I'm
an original co-sponsor of it. What the Wyoming Senator would do
is expand and reauthorize the Good Neighbor Authority. This
authority has been in places, a pilot project in my State for
10 years. It's proven to be cost effective and as well as a
common sense way to reduce wildfire risk at the boundary
between the National Forest and private property.
Wildfires, we found out, doesn't respect orders and neither
should our solutions. I look forward to working with Senator
Barrasso across the partisan divide to pass what's very common
sense and clearly a bipartisan idea.
Then finally, Mr. Chairman, I support S. 368, which is the
reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation
Act. This act is another common sense approach that funds land
conservation, especially in the West. It will benefit
businesses, land owners, sportsmen, communities, historic
preservation, recreational interests. It's critical that it be
reinstated as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for holding this hearing.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator.
What we'll have at this time is our 2 panelists, Mr. Jim
Pena, Mrs. Jamie Connell come forward.
Mr. Pena, if you'd like to start with your presentation.
STATEMENT OF JIM PENA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Pena. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso and members
of the committee, my name is Jim Pena. I serve as Associate
Deputy Chief for the National Forest System with the U.S.
Forest Service. Thank you for inviting me today to testify
regarding a number of bills that affect the national forests.
Before I begin my testimony I'd like to apologize for a few
technical errors that we made in our written testimony. The
process of creating and clearing testimony on 12 bills at the
same time has been somewhat of a challenge. We've already made
some corrections and are in the process of making a couple
more. Thank you for your patience. I'm sorry for any confusion
that this might have caused.
We look forward to working with you on these bills as they
move through the Senate.
Would you like me to just go through the bills affecting
the Forest Service first?
Senator Manchin. If you can very briefly.
Mr. Pena. Sure.
My first comments will be on S. 28, the Y Mountain Access
Act.
It would direct the Secretary to convey to Brigham Young
University all right, title and interests of the United States
in 2 parcels comprising of approximately 80 acres of National
Forest system land in the Uintah-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
in the State of Utah.
The Department does not object to the conveyance of the 2
parcels but would like to work with the Subcommittee and
sponsor to address public access at the trail head.
Senator Manchin. So noted.
Mr. Pena. My comments on S. 159, the Lyon County Economic
Development and Conservation Act will focus on Sections 3 and 4
as they pertain to management of the Toiyabe National Forest.
Section 3 of S. 159 would add almost 50,000 acres to the
National Wilderness Preservation System creating the Wovoka
Wilderness. The Forest Service categorized this area as having
a high capacity for wilderness during its forest plan revision
in 2006.
The Department supports the goals of the legislation and
would like to work with the committee on the following
concerns.
First, we'd like the bill to use more specific terms to
describe the roads as some are used to determine the location
of portions of the wilderness boundary. This will avoid any
confusion about where the wilderness boundary should be
located.
We also would like to work with you on sections that limit
either the President's or the Secretary's discretion to review
and approve water developments and wildlife management
activities within the wilderness.
Senator Manchin. That will be duly noted.
Mr. Pena. Next we'd like to address S. 255, the North Fork
Watershed Protection Act of 2013.
S. 255 would subject to valid existing rights withdraw
national forest system lands located in the North and Middle
Forks of the Flathead River watershed in Montana from location
entry and patent under the mining laws and from deposition
under the Mineral and Geothermal Leasing Law.
S. 255 would also withdraw a small amount of land in the
Kootenai National Forest.
The Department supports 255, however, I defer to the
Department of the Interior on issues related to the management
of Federal mineral estate as it's within the jurisdiction of
the Secretary of Interior.
Senator Manchin. Duly noted.
Mr. Pena. The Department generally supports S. 258, the
Grazing Improvement Act but would like to work with the
committee on a few provisions in the bill.
S. 258 would revise the permitting process for grazing in
the National Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
Specifically the bill would extend the duration of the permit
from 10 to 20 years.
The bill would also make permanent the language used in
annual appropriation riders requiring permits to be renewed
with existing terms and conditions if NEPA has not been
completed on allotments associated with the permit.
The bill would establish and require the use of categorical
exclusions and prohibit the agencies from preparing an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement
under NEPA.
The bill would also provide the Secretary with sole
discretion to determine the priority and timing of completing
the NEPA environmental analysis of grazing allotment,
notwithstanding the schedule in section 504 of the Rescissions
Act.
The Department understands and shares the committee's
desire for increasing Administrative effectiveness for both the
Forest Service and the permitee. The Department can support the
concept of having flexibility to issue a longer term permit
where current management is continued and the allotments are
monitored to assure they are meeting Forest Plan standards.
The Department believes that the Secretary rightfully
should have the sole discretion to determine the priority and
timing for completing the environmental analysis of grazing
allotments and as always--as is always the case under NEPA.
However, we don't support being limited to only using
categorical exclusions in certain circumstances for grazing
permits. The Department would like to work with the committee
and sponsor to make this modification to the bill.
I'd also like to thank Senator Barrasso for his willingness
to work with us and for the changes he's already made in the
bill in response to our previous concerns.
Senator Manchin. So noted.
Mr. Pena. S. 312 would modify the boundaries of Carson
National Forest in the State of New Mexico to include
approximately 5,000 acres of private land known as Miranda
Canyon that is adjacent to the existing national forest
boundary.
The Department supports the adjustment of the boundary
because it will create an opportunity for the acquisition of
Miranda Canyon property as part of the Carson National Forest.
Senator Manchin. Duly noted.
Mr. Pena. S. 327 would authorize the Secretary of
Agriculture and Secretary of Interior to enter into cooperative
agreements or contracts with State foresters authorizing State
foresters to provide certain forest, range land and watershed
restoration and protection services in the States West of the
100th Meridian.
We support Good Neighbor Authority, but would like to work
with the committee to make some minor technical corrections.
Senator Manchin. Duly noted.
Mr. Pena. S. 340 would allow the Sealaska Corporation, a
regional corporation established under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act to obtain its remaining land entitlement under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act from portions of the
Tongass National Forest. These areas are outside the withdrawal
area to which Sealaska's selections are currently allowed.
The Department of Agriculture supports the principles or
the principle objectives of this legislation to finalize
Sealaska's remaining Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
entitlement and promptly complete its conveyance.
However the last 2 years the Forest Service has worked
diligently with USDA, the Department of the Interior, Sealaska,
the Alaska Delegation, members of staff of the committee and
others, in particular, Senator Murkowski and her staff, to
develop a solution that is agreeable to all parties. In
particular we wish to thank Senator Murkowski and her staff's
efforts working with the Administration to resolve these long
standing issues.
S. 340 represents a major step forward in that effort. If
Sealaska Board of Directors approves a total of a little over
70,000 acres of Federal land would be conveyed to the full and
final satisfaction of Sealaska's remaining land entitlement
under Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. We understand there
is some concern that S. 340 would create a precedent for other
native corporations to seek similar legislation. We believe the
circumstances surrounding this legislation are unique and that
no such precedent would be created.
The biggest remaining issue deals with the potential
effects of the bill on the transition to young growth forest
management in Southeast Alaska and ways to offset those
effects. Under 340 many of the oldest, second growth stands on
the Tongass would be conveyed to Sealaska accelerating
Sealaska's young growth program but substantially delaying
development of the Forest Service young growth program. In
order for the Tongass to continue its transition to harvesting
young growth without any delay caused by the transfer of lands
to Sealaska, the Administration recommends that a limited
amount of young growth timber on the Tongass be expressly
exempted from CMAI which limits the harvest of young growth
forest stands until they've reached their maximum rate of
growth.
We look forward to the close working relationship to
resolve the few issues that remain and then we'll be able to
move this forward.
Senator Manchin. Duly noted.
Mr. Pena. S. 341 would designate 9 parcels of the Grand
Mesa Uncompahgre, the GMUG, National Forest as wilderness under
the National Wilderness Preservation Act.
The Department supports S. 341 and would like to offer
minor modifications to the bill that would enhance wilderness
values and clarify the special management area designation.
We thank Senator Udall for his collaborative approach and
appreciate the local involvement that has contributed to wide
support in Colorado for this bill.
Senator Manchin. Duly noted.
Mr. Pena. S. 353 would affect the National Forest lands by
transferring Administrative jurisdiction over a parcel of land
currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management to the
Forest Service and by making changes to 2 existing Wild and
Scenic River designations.
The Department has no objection to either of these parcels
being exchanged out of Federal ownership if the BLM, Bureau of
Land Management, determines that the land exchange would
benefit, provide public benefit.
The Department is supportive of the Wild and Scenic River
designation technical changes as they provide a more
appropriate naming convention and better reflect management
classifications and direction for the Chetco River.
Senator Manchin. So noted.
Mr. Pena. The Department strongly supports S. 360. This
bill would strengthen and facilitate the use of public lands
service corps program helping to fulfill Secretary Vilsack's
vision for engaging young people across America to serve their
community and their country. It's also consistent with the
goals of the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative
which includes catalyzing the establishment of a 21st century
conservation service corps to engage young people in the public
lands--in public lands service work.
S. 360 would help USDA and our sister agencies, Department
of the Interior and NOAA expand opportunities for our youth to
engage in the care of America's great outdoors and is a fine
example of multiple agencies coming together to implement a
shared goal.
Senator Manchin. Duly noted.
Mr. Pena. S. 344, the Black Hills Cemetery Act would
require the cemetery to convey without consideration 9 parcels
of the National Forest system lands containing cemeteries
located on National Forest System land in the Black Hills
National Forest to local entities. The conveyance of these 9
cemeteries is consistent with the land and resource management
plan for the Black Hills National Forest.
The Department does not object to making the Federal land
available for use as cemeteries. But it does not support
conveyance of National Forest system lands without compensation
for the value of the properties.
Senator Manchin. Duly noted.
Mr. Pena. S. 736, the Alaska Subsistence Structure
Protection Act of 2013 would provide relief to the rural
Alaskan cabin users who depend on the Tongass National Forest
for subsistence fishing, hunting and gathering by capping the
fee that may be charged for special use permits authorized in
the use of these cabins.
The Department does not oppose S. 736 but would appreciate
the opportunity to work with the committee staff on technical
changes to the bill.
The Forest Service currently has authority to implement the
changes in fees required by the bill. We'd like an opportunity
to make those changes administratively to fit our fee
structure.
Senator Manchin. Duly noted.
Mr. Pena. That concludes my run through of the bills. I'd
be happy to take any questions now or at the end.
Senator Manchin. I thought what we'd do is we'd go ahead
and have Ms. Connell do hers. Then we'll have the members ask
questions as they finish.
Mr. Pena. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pena follows:]
Statement of Jim M. Pena Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, on S. 28
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding
S.28, the ``Y'' Mountain Access Enhancement Act.
S.28, the ``Y'' Mountain Access Enhancement Act, would direct the
Secretary to convey to Brigham Young University (BYU) all right, title,
and interest of the United States to 2 parcels comprising approximately
89 acres of National Forest System land in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache
National Forest in the State of Utah, as shown on the accompanying map.
The southern parcel is a split estate, so the United States would only
convey what it owns (the surface estate). The United States does not
own the underlying mineral estate.
The Department does not object to the conveyance of the two
parcels, but would like to work with the Subcommittee and the sponsor
to address public access at the trailhead. The trailhead and beginning
portion of the ``Y Mountain Trail'' are located on land owned by the
University. These parcels are adjacent to it. Historically, the public
has been permitted access to the trailhead and trail. Section 2(c) of
the bill seeks to provide the same reasonable public access for the
trail that historically has been allowed. To accomplish this objective,
the Department recommends that section 2(c) be revised to provide for
the reservation by the Secretary of an easement for public access for
the portion of Forest Service Trail #2062 that would be conveyed to the
University. In addition, there is no legal public access to the trail
and trailhead located on BYU owned property. Therefore, to ensure legal
public access, the Department suggests the committee consider an
amendment to allow the Secretary to obtain an easement from BYU for the
trailhead parking lot and the portion of trail that traverses across
BYU property.
The bill provides for the conveyance of this land for consideration
in the amount equal to the fair market value of the land. The bill also
requires the proceeds from the sale shall be deposited in the general
fund of the Treasury to reduce the Federal debt. The Department
recommends utilizing Public Law 90-171, commonly known as the ``Sisk
Act'' (16. U.S.C. 484a), which would allow for the deposit of proceeds
received for a conveyance into the fund established under the Sisk Act
for the acquisition of land or interests in land within the State of
Utah.
ON S. 159
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding
S.159, the Lyon County Economic Development and Conservation Act.
Section 2 of the bill pertains to public lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management. This testimony will address Sections 3 and 4
in my comments as they pertain to the management of the Toiyabe
National Forest.
Section 3 of S.159 would add the Wovoka Wilderness to the National
Wilderness Preservation System. These 47,449 acres are the largest
remaining tract of wild country in Lyon County Nevada, encompassing the
southern portion of the Pine Grove Hills south of Yerington Nevada. The
core of this proposed wilderness is the Forest Service South Pine Grove
Hill Inventoried Roadless Area. The Forest Service categorized this
roadless area as having a high capacity for wilderness during its
Forest Plan Revision wilderness evaluation in 2006.
Designation of the Wovoka Wilderness would preserve sage-grouse
habitat, protect prehistoric cultural resources, ensure the
availability of primitive recreational resources, and maintain high air
and water quality in the area, while ensuring the conservation of
ecologically diverse and important habitats. Further, the bill
encourages the collaboration between the Department and the Lyon County
Commission on local wildfire and forest management planning. The
Department supports these worthy goals and would support S.159, if the
bill is amended to address the following concerns.
S.159 would provide for several standard provisions for the
management of wilderness area within the National Wilderness
Preservation System. However, it introduces several new provisions that
raise concerns.
Section 3(c)(2) would require that the wilderness boundary be
placed 150 feet from the centerline of adjacent roads when they border
the boundary. While this is generally a good policy, we are concerned
that the term ``roads'' is open to interpretation. We would prefer the
use of the term ``forest roads'' or ``public roads'' which reflects
those roads designated by the Forest Service during our travel planning
process or by other jurisdictions. This will avoid any confusion about
the intent of the provision during creation of the legal description.
The Department objects to Section 3(d)(7), relating to water
rights. Specifically, Section 3(d)(7)(E)(ii)(I) would prohibit the
Forest Service from developing for its own purposes any water resource
facility other than a wildlife guzzler. Additionally, Section
3(d)(7)(E)(ii)(II) would require the Forest Service to approve
applications for the development of water resource facilities for
livestock purposes within the Bald Mountain grazing allotment submitted
by Bald Mountain grazing allotment permittees within 10 years of
designation of the wilderness. The President's discretion under the
Wilderness Act to review and approve any potential water development
structure or facility that is deemed in the national interest should
not be limited by these provisions.
Section 3(e), relating to wildlife management, also presents
concerns. Section 3(e)(3) would give the State authority to use
helicopters and other aircraft for specified wildlife management
purposes without specific permission from the Forest Service. Section
3(e)(4) would constrict the Forest Service's authority to restrict
hunting or fishing, and section 3(e)(5) would perpetuate in perpetuity
the application of a 1984 Memorandum of Understanding between the
Forest Service and the State to State wildlife management activities in
this wilderness area.
The Department objects to Section 3(f) Wildlife Water Development
Projects, which would require the Secretary to authorize structures and
facilities for wildlife water development where the Secretary
determines that the development will enhance wilderness values by
providing more naturally distributed wildlife populations and the
visual impacts of the structures and facilities can be visually
minimized. This language, while it provides some flexibility, still
removes Secretarial discretion to consider the impact of wildlife water
developments on other wilderness values. The Department already has the
discretion to consider the placement of wildlife water developments
consistent with the Wilderness Act and House Report 101-405. This
section is an unnecessary abridgement of the Secretary's discretion.
Section 4 of the bill would withdraw an area of National Forest
from (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under public land laws, (2)
location, entry and patent under the mining laws, and (3) operation of
the mineral laws, geothermal leasing laws and mineral materials laws.
The use of motorized and mechanical vehicles within the withdrawn area
would be limited.
The Department would like to work with the committee and the
sponsor of the bill to ensure all valid existing rights may continue in
the future.
ON S. 255
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding
S.255, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2013.
S.255 would, subject to valid existing rights, withdraw National
Forest System (NFS) lands located in the North Fork and Middle Fork of
Flathead River watersheds in Montana which are primarily managed as
part of the Flathead National Forest from location, entry and patent
under the mining laws and from disposition under the mineral and
geothermal leasing laws. S.255 would also withdrawal a small amount of
land in the Kootenai National Forest. Currently there are 39 existing
leases or claims in the North Fork comprising 56,117 acres and 18
existing leases or claims in the Middle Fork comprising 8,595 acres.
The Department supports S. 255, however, I would like to clarify that
although the Department has surface management authority concerning
mineral operations, the management of the federal mineral estate falls
within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. We defer to
the Department of the Interior on issues related to the status of the
existing claims and leases.
The Forest Service administers surface resources on nearly 193
million acres of NFS lands located in forty-two states and the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Forest Plan for the Flathead National
Forest blends areas of multiple uses in the North Fork and Middle Fork
with areas of specific or limited uses elsewhere on the Forest. Under
current law, NFS lands reserved from the public domain pursuant to the
Creative Act of 1891, including those in S. 255, are open to location,
entry and patent under the United States Mining Laws unless those lands
have subsequently been withdrawn from the application of the mining
laws. This bill would withdraw approximately 362,000 acres from the
operation of the locatable and leasable mineral laws subject to valid
existing rights. This includes approximately 291,000 acres on the
Flathead National Forest and approximately 5,000 acres on the Kootenai
National Forest in the North Fork watershed and 66,000 acres in the
Middle Fork watershed on the Flathead National Forest.
The majority of North Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead has low
to moderate potential for the occurrence of locatable and leasable
minerals. A portion of the Middle Fork does have an area of high
potential for oil and gas occurrence. Much of the North Fork and Middle
Fork was leased for oil and gas in the early 1980s. Subsequently, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service were sued and BLM
suspended the leases in 1985 to comply with a District Court ruling
(Conner v. Burford, 605 F. Supp. 107 (D.Mont.1985)). Presently, there
are no active locatable or leasable operations, including oil and gas,
in the North Fork or Middle Fork.
We recognize the bill would not affect the existing oil and gas
leases because they would constitute valid existing rights. We also
recognize the bill would not change the court's order in Conner v.
Burford requiring the BLM and Forest Service to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act before authorizing any surface disturbing activities on the
affected leases.
The Flathead National Forest and Flathead County rely on the close
proximity of local sources of aggregate to maintain roads economically
and as a source of building materials. We are pleased this bill would
not preclude the removal and use of mineral materials, such as
aggregate. The ability to continue using those local mineral materials
would allow us to more easily maintain local roads, thus reduce erosion
related impacts to streams and lakes in the North Fork and Middle Fork
drainages.
ON S. 258
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding
S.258 the Grazing Improvement Act. The Department supports this bill.
We believe that this bill would increase efficiencies, but not at the
expense of good land stewardship.
The Department understands and shares the committee's desire for
increasing administrative efficiencies for both the Forest Service and
the permittee and while the Department supports certain provisions, we
cannot support S.258 as written. The Department specifically has
concerns with requirements and definitions in the use of categorical
exclusions. The Department also recognizes that the Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management operate under different authorities, such
as the Rescissions Act of 1995, which determines how the Forest Service
is to apply NEPA for grazing allotments. As a result, various
provisions in S.258 affect the agencies differently. We therefore defer
to the Department of the Interior on those provisions that don't
directly affect the Forest Service, or the impacts of those provisions
on Department of the Interior programs.
The Forest Service enjoys a cooperative relationship with the vast
majority of the over 6,800 individuals who hold permits for grazing,
permitting approximately 8.2 million animal unit months on nearly 94
million acres of National Forests and Grasslands. Grazing permittees
have helped provide for the effective stewardship of our public lands
for many decades. While the vast majority of the grazing permittees are
excellent stewards in caring for range resources, there are some areas
where permittees need to take action to improve range conditions. The
Forest Service is working with many permittees to make such
improvements.
In addition, the Forest Service's grazing program not only helps
support the economies of rural communities across the west, but it also
helps maintain open space on private lands. Most permittees utilize and
need both public and private lands to graze livestock economically. The
loss of grazing on public lands can result in the loss of grazing on
private lands that may lead to the conversion of private open space to
other uses such as subdivision development.
S.258 would revise the permitting process for grazing in the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Specifically, the bill
would extend the duration of the permit from 10 years to 20 years. The
bill also would make permanent the language used in annual
appropriation riders which has required expiring permits to be renewed
with existing terms and conditions if the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) has not been completed on allotments associated with the
permit. It further would expand the appropriation riders language to
include transferred or waived permits or leases.
The bill would establish and require the use of categorical
exclusions (CE) and prohibit the agencies from preparing an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under NEPA.
CEs, which require no public notice, would apply if a decision
continues the current grazing management on an allotment; monitoring
has indicated that the current grazing management has met or is
satisfactorily moving towards meeting land use management plan
objectives; or the decision is consistent with the policy of the
Department regarding extraordinary circumstances. While we support
providing the line officer with the option to use a categorical
exclusion category where the parameters of what constitutes a minor
adjustment are narrowly defined, we do not support requiring use of
categorical exclusions. The bill also would provide the Secretary with
the sole discretion to determine the priority and timing for completing
the environmental analysis of a grazing allotment, notwithstanding the
schedule in section 504 of the Rescissions Act.
S.258 also exempts crossing and trailing authorizations as well as
the transfer of grazing preference from NEPA. We defer to the
Department of the Interior on these provisions.
S.258 would require that grazing permits be issued for a term of 20
years rather than the current 10-year term. Permits may be issued for a
shorter term on land that is pending disposal or will be devoted to a
public purpose, or where it is in the best interest of sound land
management on those allotments that have not had initial NEPA.
The Department understands and shares the committee's desire for
increasing administrative efficiencies for both the Forest Service and
the permittee. The Department can support the concept of having the
flexibility to issue a longer term permit where current management is
continued and the allotments are being monitored to assure they are
meeting Forest Plan standards. The Department believes that the
Secretary rightfully should have the sole discretion to determine the
priority and timing for completing environmental analyses of grazing
allotments, as is always the case under NEPA. We do not, however,
support being limited to only using CEs in certain instances for
grazing permits. We have completed NEPA analyses on threefourths of our
grazing allotments. We have been able to move forward with our renewed,
reissued and transferred grazing permit program. Our analyses, with or
without a CE, have been helpful in determining range conditions, a
matter of great concern to all permittees and the Forest Service. We
look forward to continuing to work with the committee and sponsors of
this bill.
ON S. 312
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding
S.312, the Carson National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 2013.
S.312 would modify the boundaries of the Carson National Forest in
the State of New Mexico to include approximately 5,000 acres of private
land known as ``Miranda Canyon'' that is adjacent to the existing
National Forest boundary. The Department supports the adjustment of the
boundary because it will create an opportunity for the acquisition of
Miranda Canyon property as part of the Carson National Forest.
The Trust for Public Land currently owns most of the Miranda Canyon
Property and will purchase the rest from Weimer Properties by the end
of the year. It is located approximately four miles south of Taos, New
Mexico. Weimer Properties spent several years proposing to develop a
subdivision and seeking to acquire approval from the Taos County Board
of Commissioners. Approval of the subdivision was not granted and the
Taos County Commissioners requested the New Mexico Congressional
delegation consider placing this land under the stewardship of the U.S.
Forest Service.
The Miranda Canyon Property is an expansive piece of property that
ranges in elevation from 7,200 ft. to 10,800 ft. The property has
various vegetative types from low elevation sagebrush and pinon--
juniper to high elevation mixed conifer forest including large aspen
clones. The landscape has numerous ridges and peaks that provide
breathtaking views of the Rio Grande Gorge to the west and of Wheeler
Peak (highest peak in New Mexico) to the north. The property contains
historical features such as the Camino Real Trail and unique geologic
features such as a small volcano and Miranda granite--1.7 billion year
old rock outcrops that rival the age of rock found at the bottom of the
Grand Canyon. There are also numerous meadows and riparian vegetation
that provide excellent habitat for wildlife.
The proposed boundary adjustment has wide grass roots support from
the local residents, the Taos County Board of Commissioners, the
Village of Taos, and local Native American Tribes and Pueblos. To date,
there has been no opposition voiced to adjusting the boundary of the
Carson National Forest. The adjustment of the Forest boundary would
open the door to the potential federal acquisition of Miranda Canyon
from a willing seller. The cost of acquiring the Miranda Canyon
property would be approximately $10,500,000, subject to the
availability of appropriations. The properties are in the process of a
conservation sale to the United States through an agreement with the
Trust for Public Lands, a 3rd party non-profit organization. This
agreement keeps the property from being developed or sold on the open
market until funding is appropriated. The acquisition would provide
additional recreation opportunities for hunting, sightseeing, camping,
hiking, interpretation, and horseback riding for the public.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify is support of S.312. The
Department supports the acquisition of the Miranda Canyon property
because it would make an outstanding addition to the National Forest
System.
ON S. 327
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding
S.327, the Good Neighbor Forestry Act.
S.327 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements or
contracts with State foresters authorizing State foresters to provide
certain forest, rangeland and watershed restoration and protection
services in states west of the 100th meridian.
Activities that could be undertaken using this authority include:
(1) activities to treat insect infected trees; (2) activities to reduce
hazardous fuels; and (3) any other activities to restore or improve
forest, rangeland and watershed health, including fish and wildlife
habitat. The bill would authorize the states to act as agents for the
Secretary and would provide that states could subcontract for services
authorized under this bill. The bill would require federal retention of
decision making under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321et seq.). The authority to enter into contracts or
agreements under the bill would expire on September 30, 2019.
We support Good Neighbor Authority (GNA), but would like to work
with the committee to make some minor technical corrections. We know
our Nation's forests face forest health challenges, which must be
addressed across diverse land ownerships. In these times of limited
resources, it is important to leverage workforce and technical
capacities and develop partnerships for forest restoration across all
lands. To that end, we look forward to continuing our work with the
committee and states.
ON S. 340
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of
Agriculture's views on S.340, the ``Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act.'' S.340 would allow
the Sealaska Corporation, a Regional Corporation established under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), to obtain its
remaining land entitlement under ANCSA from portions of the Tongass
National Forest outside of the withdrawal areas to which Sealaska's
selections are currently restricted by law.
The Department of Agriculture supports the objectives of finalizing
Sealaska's remaining ANCSA entitlement, and completing conveyance of
it. Over the last two years, the Forest Service has worked diligently
with USDA, the Department of the Interior, Sealaska, the Alaska
delegation, members and staff of the committee, and others to develop a
solution that works for everyone. S.340 represents a major step forward
in that effort. We look forward to continuing the close working
relationship to resolve the few issues that remain.
Under S.340, if the Sealaska board of directors approves the
conveyances contemplated by the bill within 90 days of its enactment,
the Secretary of the Interior would convey to Sealaska 18 parcels of
Federal land on the Tongass National Forest totaling 69,585 acres
within 60 days. Sealaska would also be allowed to apply within two
years to the Secretary of the Interior for 76 cemetery sites and
historical places; conveyance would be limited to a total of 490 acres.
If any of these sites were rejected, Sealaska could apply for
additional cemetery sites. These conveyances totaling 70,075 acres of
Federal land would be the full and final satisfaction of Sealaska's
remaining land entitlement under ANCSA.
The biggest remaining issue deals with the potential effects of the
bill on the transition to young growth forest management in Southeast
Alaska, and ways to offset those effects. USDA is making extensive
efforts to transition the Tongass timber program, and the timber
industry in Southeast Alaska, away from a reliance on old-growth timber
towards a reliance primarily on the harvest of young growth stands. We
believe this transition is essential to the long-term social and
economic sustainability of the industry, and of the local economies of
the communities in Southeast Alaska.
Under S.340, many of the oldest second-growth stands on the Tongass
would be conveyed to Sealaska. That would accelerate Sealaska's young
growth program, but substantially delay the development of the Forest
Service's young growth program on the Tongass unless additional steps
are taken. The steps recommended by the Administration relate to the
``Culmination of Mean Annual Increment,'' or CMAI. This is a provision
of the National Forest Management Act which, in lay terms, generally
limits the harvest of young growth forest stands until they have
reached their maximum rate of growth. In order for the Tongass to
continue its transition to harvesting young growth without any delay
caused by the transfer of lands to Sealaska, the Administration
recommends that a limited amount of young growth timber on the Tongass
be expressly exempted from CMAI. This exemption is not precedent-
setting; it would apply only to the Tongass National Forest, due to the
unique situation presented by this legislation. The existing CMAI
provision contained in the NFMA would not be amended. We recognize that
forest industry wants to ensure that the transition to young growth
timber is done in a way that sustains the industry. We share that goal
and believe that a limited CMAI exemption in this legislation will
benefit the industry, local communities, and the Tongass. The
successful resolution of this issue would remove the primary obstacle
to moving forward with this bill. There are several other minor
amendments still being discussed. We hope to continue working with
Sealaska and the Committee on these issues to ensure the final bill can
be swiftly and efficiently implemented.
In conclusion, we have come a long way toward developing a solution
that works for all parties. Particularly the department wants to
recognize Sen. Murkowski and her staff, for their willingness to work
in good faith toward agreements wherever possible. With a little more
time and effort, the department believes that result can be achieved.
ON S. 341
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding S.
341, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act.
The Department supports S.341 and would like to offer minor
modifications to the bill that would enhance wilderness values, clarify
the special management area designation, and improve our ability to
manage resources in the area. We thank Senator Udall for his
collaborative approach and appreciate the local involvement that has
contributed to the wide support in Colorado for this bill.
The Department defers to the Department of the Interior in regard
to the proposal to designate approximately 8,600 acres of Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) lands as the McKenna Peak Wilderness.
S.341 would designate nine parcels of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre
and Gunnison National Forests as wilderness under the National
Wilderness Preservation System. These areas, totaling approximately
24,400 acres, encompass some of Colorado's most majestic, remote
landscapes with many abundant wildlife species including elk, deer,
bighorn sheep, bears and a variety of birds. Several world-class trout
streams are also found in the areas. These areas also provide
opportunities to experience solitude and primitive recreation use for
members of the public seeking areas to connect with nature.
These parcels would be additions to two existing wildernesses:
Lizard Head and Mount Sneffels. In addition, S.341 would designate the
Sheep Mountain area as a Special Management Area to be managed to
maintain the area's existing wilderness character and potential for
inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Also, S.341
would provide for a mineral withdrawal within a portion of Naturita
Canyon.
Lizard Head Wilderness Additions
The Lizard Head Wilderness lies astride the spectacular San Miguel
Mountains, 10 miles southwest of Telluride, Colorado on the Uncompahgre
and San Juan National Forests. Elevations in the area range from 9,500
to over 14,000 feet. The wilderness is evenly split between the two
national forests and is 41,200 acres in size.
The proposed wilderness additions include five parcels,
encompassing approximately 3,150 acres of National Forest System lands
adjacent to the existing wilderness. Though neither of the Forest Plans
recommends these areas for wilderness designation, wilderness
designation would be consistent with current management of the area. No
summer motorized recreation is currently allowed and effects to winter
motorized recreation will be minimal as there is very little snowmobile
use of the area.
Mount Sneffels Wilderness Additions
The Mount Sneffels Wilderness comprises more than 16,500 acres on
the Uncompahgre National Forest between the communities of Telluride
and Ouray, Colorado. Elevations range from 9,600 to 14,150 feet at the
top of Mount Sneffels.
The proposed wilderness additions include four parcels that
encompass approximately 21,250 acres of National Forest System land
adjacent to the existing wilderness. As with the Lizard Head Additions,
even though this area was not recommended as wilderness in the Forest
Plan, designation is generally aligned with forest plan direction and
will have minimal effects on summer and winter recreation.
We would like to work with the subcommittee to address some
technical aspects of the bill. We recommend changing the wilderness
boundary near Telluride to provide for a more definitive boundary by
following a cliff formation, following a more recognizable topographic
feature for the wilderness boundary. Moving the boundary would also
allow an important race to the community to continue in its current
location. If the area is designated wilderness the race would be
prohibited through the wilderness.
Sheep Mountain Special Management Area
S. 341 would also designate an area of about 21,600 acres of NFS
land that lies south of the town of Ophir, Colorado as a special
management area. About 10,850 acres are within the Uncompahgre National
Forest and about 10,750 acres are within the San Juan National Forest.
This area contains some lands purchased recently with funds provided by
Congress as part of the Ophir Valley Land and Water Conservation Fund
project.
Elevations in the area range from 10,200 to almost 13,900 feet at
the top of Vermillion Peak. The area is dense with spruce and fir trees
at the lower elevations. Above timberline are high alpine valleys with
numerous lakes, tarns and waterfalls beneath dramatic 13,000-foot peaks
and serrated ridges. The Forest Plans identify half of the area to be
managed for semi-primitive nonmotorized recreation and the other half
for other recreation purposes.
The Department recognizes the desire of the bill sponsors to
preserve the characteristics of Sheep Mountain as a Special Management
Area for potential designation as wilderness. With respect to water
rights and water development, Section 4(d)(3) would prohibit new water
development projects in the special management area. This provision is
more restrictive than section 4(d)(4) of the Wilderness Act under which
the President of the United States may exercise discretion to authorize
such facilities within designated wilderness areas if they are
determined to be in the public interest. We support amending this
provision so that it is consistent with the discretion authorized by
the Wilderness Act.
Naturita Canyon Withdrawal
S.341 would also provide for a withdrawal on approximately 6,600
acres of National Forest System lands within Naturita Canyon on the
Uncompahgre National Forest. This is an area important to local
residents and is about five miles south of the community of Norwood,
Colorado. Naturita Canyon is a relatively low-elevation river drainage
(7,000 feet) with steep canyon walls that tower 1,000 feet. There are
no current leases within the area proposed for withdrawal. Impacts on
available oil and gas resources for this withdrawal are unknown.
Further exploration information would be needed for a conclusive
assessment.
ON S. 353
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding
S.353, the Oregon Treasures Act of 2013.
S. 353 would affect National Forest System (NFS) lands by
transferring administrative jurisdiction over a parcel of land
currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the
Forest Service, and by making changes to two existing wild and scenic
rivers designations.
Section 2 of the bill provides for land exchanges between BLM and
private parties. We defer to BLM for its position on those exchanges.
One of the exchanges, identified in the bill as the Young Life
Exchange, would involve the conveyance of two parcels of NFS land,
comprising approximately 690 acres. The Department has no objection to
either of the parcels being exchanged out of federal ownership if BLM
determines that the land exchange will provide a public benefit.
Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction
Section 2(b)(7) of the bill would transfer administrative
jurisdiction of certain BLM lands that lie within, or are adjacent to,
the Ochoco National Forest to the Forest Service. The Department
supports the transfer of jurisdiction over these lands to the Forest
Service. This mutually beneficial transfer will make management of the
federal lands more efficient.
Wild and Scenic River Designations
Section 4(b) officially changes the name of ``Squaw Creek'' to
``Whychus Creek'' to better reflect local usage and current geographic
nomenclature standards. This section also updates the location
description in the existing designation in section 3(a)(102) of the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to incorporate several other name changes.
Section 5 of the bill amends the existing designation in Section
3(a)(69) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to change the starting and
ending points of the three main segments of the Chetco River. These
changes will extend the wild segment an additional 2 miles from Boulder
Creek to Mislatnah Creek so that the segment extends from the
headwaters to Mislatnah Creek for a total segment length of 27.5 miles;
reduce the scenic segment 1/2 mile so that it begins at Mislatnah Creek
and ends at Eagle Creek for a total segment length of 7.5 miles; and
reduce the recreational segment 1.5 miles so that it begins at Eagle
Creek while leaving its end at the Siskiyou National Forest border
unchanged, for a total segment length of 9.5 miles. The total length of
the Chetco Wild and Scenic River would remain 44.5 miles.
In addition, Section 5 would effectuate a mineral withdrawal of the
Federal land within the boundary of the segments of the Chetco River
designated as a wild and scenic river. Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act, only Federal lands within segments designated as wild are subject
to a mineral withdrawal.
The Department is supportive of these technical changes as they
provide a more appropriate naming convention in the first case, and
better reflect management classifications and direction for the Chetco
River in the second case. The Chetco River is a jewel of the south
coast of Oregon and should be protected from impacts that could change
its river values and current conditions, including tremendous
anadromous fish runs.
ON S. 360
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding S.
360, the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013.
S. 360 is a welcome amendment to the Public Lands Corps Act of
1993. The Nation's forests and grasslands are unique and special
ecosystems that the Forest Service manages to meet the needs of present
and future generations. These lands yield abundant sustainable goods
and ecosystem services for the American people. The National Forest
System lands are perfect places for the Public Lands Service Corps
participants to learn and practice an array of conservation,
restoration, preservation, interpretation and cultural resource
activities, and take advantage of outstanding and unique educational
opportunities. In states in every region, the Forest Service has
benefited greatly from the services of Conservation Corps on National
Forest System lands.
The Department strongly supports S. 360. This bill would strengthen
and facilitate the use of the Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) program,
helping to fulfill the vision that Secretary Vilsack has for engaging
young people across America to serve their community and their country.
It is also consistent with and will help the Administration to meet the
goals of the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative, which
called for catalyzing the establishment of a 21st century Conservation
Service Corps (21CSC) to engage young people in public lands service
work.
In January 2013, leaders of eight federal departments and agencies
signed an agreement setting up a national council to guide
implementation of the Administration's 21st Century Conservation
Service Corps (21CSC), a national collaborative effort between federal
and non-federal partners to put America's youth and returning veterans
to work protecting, restoring and enhancing America's great outdoors.
By signing the Memorandum of Understanding, the Secretaries of
Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, and Labor, as well as the EPA
Administrator, Chair of the President's Council on Environmental
Quality, CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service and
Assistant Secretary for the Army (Civil Works) established the National
Council for the 21CSC, implementing the first recommendation of the
America's Great Outdoors Initiative introduced by President Obama in
2010.
Building on the legacy of President Roosevelt's Civilian
Conservation Corps during the Great Depression in the 1930s, the 21CSC
will bring agencies and partners together to help build and train a
workforce that fully represents the diversity of America while creating
the next generation of environmental stewards and improving the
condition of our public lands.
The 21CSC focuses on helping young people--including diverse low-
income, underserved and at-risk youth, as well as returning veterans--
gain valuable training and work experience while accomplishing needed
conservation and restoration work on public lands, waterways and
cultural heritage sites. The National Council works across the federal
government to support the 21CSC by enhancing partnerships with existing
youth corps programs that utilize PLC around the nation; stimulating
existing and new public-private partnerships; and aligning the
investment of current federal government resources.
S. 360 would help both the Forest Service and our sister agencies
in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce offer
expanded opportunities for our youth to engage in the care of America's
Great Outdoors. Additionally, the PLC program helps the Department
implement critical cost-effective conservation projects that have
direct positive impacts for the agency and the public.
In recent years, the Forest Service has greatly expanded
partnerships with local, state, and urban based conservation Corps
programs and our Job Corps Center portfolio. Under S.360, we will be
able to increase partnerships with Corps programs and expand
opportunities for Job Corps graduates in the Green Careers program.
In 2012, our partnerships with the Students Conservation
Association, The Corps Network, and multiple youth, conservation and
veterans Corps in every region resulted in nearly 9,500 youth and young
adults serving on public lands. The expanded authority provided by
S.360 will improve the Act by providing increased flexibility to use
interns and Conservation Corps teams. It will also help ensure that
underserved populations are able to participate by defining minimum
match requirements while also providing flexibility with the match
requirement.
The emphasis on experiential training and education will help
promote the value of public service in addition to contributing to the
accomplishment of much needed work. S.360 will expand our usage of the
PLSC in a variety of program areas by providing additional resources
and mechanisms to engage young people in a range of developmental
opportunities. This authority will further assist in providing even
more outdoor opportunities that will nurture the next generation of
public land stewards.
The broader definition of natural, cultural and historic resource
work under the amendment benefits the Nation's forests and grasslands
by authorizing a wider variety of different types of youth engagement.
The expanded authority to engage Native Americans through the Indian
Youth Service Corps and resources assistants and consulting interns
will contribute to our goals of creating a more diverse workforce as we
seek to fill positions in an aging workforce. These new and expanded
authorities will ultimately promote public understanding and
appreciation of the mission and work of the federal land, coastal and
ocean management agencies.
We appreciate the flexibility of the expanded authority in section
205, which would authorize the use of residential facilities. Our
history of program delivery through Forest Service Job Corps Civilian
Conservation Centers has allowed us to reach more than six million
youth since the program was established in 1964. The U.S. Forest
Service operates residential Civilian Conservation Centers through an
interagency agreement with the Department of Labor Job Corps program.
The 2009 Omnibus appropriations Act authorized the Forest Service to
operate six additional Job Corps Centers formerly run by the Bureau of
Reclamation. The now 28 Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers have
the capacity to house, educate and train 6,200 enrollees between the
ages of 16 and 24. Our extensive experience operating residential
facilities successfully has resulted in the establishment of many best
practices and in-depth operational knowledge about residential
conservation centers.
The Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers not only help cultivate
and develop emerging leaders within the Forest Service, but also
provide a pipeline of entry-level workers. Each year the Forest Service
hires dozens of Job Corps graduates that have participated in forestry
and conservation programs. Through Job Corps, the Forest Service is
building a skilled and diverse workforce capable of advancing the
agency's mission.
With our partners, we can confidently leverage resources and expand
our ability to develop a well-trained and responsible workforce in
natural and cultural resources. Youth will participate in community
service, restoration and stewardship projects; leadership and civic
engagement programs; recreation; and team building and independent
living skills training.
The Forest Service is uniquely positioned to manage residential
conservation centers on the National Forests and Grasslands. This
initiative could become an important component of the emerging youth
outdoors initiative. It will also provide us with a unique opportunity
to develop and implement innovative programming that will engage more
urban youth and people that have been previously underserved.
There are a number of implementation issues that should be
considered in establishing new residential conservation centers. These
include the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities,
potential liability issues, and questions about the impact on contract
and labor laws. We would like to work with the Committee on addressing
these types of issues. The Department of Labor also is reviewing S. 360
to ensure child labor protections apply for participating youth, and
will address any concerns it has directly with the Subcommittee.
S.360 would increase the opportunity for Public Lands Service Corps
members to leverage their education and work experience in obtaining
permanent full-time employment with Federal agencies. While we strongly
support S.360, we offer a few amendments to the bill that are outlined
below:
1) Hiring preference
The Administration recommends changing eligibility for former PLSC
for noncompetitive hiring status from two years to one year. This
change would make eligibility status consistent with other Government-
wide, non-competitive appointment authorities based on service outside
of the Federal government.
2) Cost sharing for nonprofit organizations contributing to
expenses of resource assistants and consulting
interns:
Under current law in the case of resource assistants, and under
S.360 in the case of consulting interns, sponsoring organizations are
required to cost-share 25 percent of the expenses of providing and
supporting these individuals from ``private sources of funding.'' The
Administration recommends giving agencies the ability to reduce the
non-Federal contribution to no less than 10 percent, if the Secretary
determines it is necessary to enable a greater range of organizations,
such as smaller, community-based organizations that draw from low-
income and rural populations, to participate in the PLSC program. This
would make the cost-share provisions for resource assistants and
consulting interns parallel to the provisions under the bill for other
PLSC participants.
3) Department-wide authorities
The Administration recommends technical amendments to clarify that
PLSC activities will be carried out on public lands as enumerated in
the law. ``Eligible service lands'' may be interpreted to include non-
Federal lands.
4) Agreements with Partners on Training and Employing Corps
Members
The Administration recommends striking the provision in S.360 that
would allow PLSC members to receive federally funded stipends and other
PLSC benefits while working directly for non-Federal third parties. The
need for this language is unclear, since agencies already have
flexibility in how they coordinate work with cooperating associations,
educational institutes, friends groups, or similar nonprofit
partnership organizations. Yet, the language could raise unanticipated
concerns over accountability, liability, and conflicts of interest. For
example, this language could allow an individual to receive a federally
funded stipend under a PLSC agreement, and then perform work for a
different non-federal group (such as a cooperating association) that is
subject to agency oversight under different agreements. This language
could blur the lines of responsibility that have been established in
response to IG concerns over the management of cooperating associations
and friends groups.
5) Participants/Terms
The Administration recommends striking the provision in S. 360 that
would limit the terms of service of Corps participants. This would
retain the authority provided for in current law which provides for
administrative flexibility in determining the appropriate length of
service for Corps participants.
6) Authorization of Appropriations
The Administration recommends amending S. 360 to eliminate the $12
million authorization ceiling for the program under existing law. This
would allow for an increased funding for the program in the future, as
the three Departments increase their use of the Public Lands Service
Corps.
The Forest Service has offices already in place to help coordinate
the Public Lands Service Corps through its National Job Corps Civilian
Conservation Centers program and the Office of Recreation, Heritage and
Volunteer Resources Volunteers (RHVR) and Service program. The Forest
Service RHVR Volunteers and Service program could likely be the
coordinating office for Public Lands Service Corps in the Forest
Service.
The Forest Service is fully committed to the advancement of young
people through a variety of conservation projects, training, and
service learning and conservation education. Along with the Bureau of
Land Management, we can provide participants with an understanding of
the agency's history and training on multiple-use and sustained-yield
management of natural, cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational
and scenic resources. Our mission, ``To sustain the health, diversity
and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the
needs of present and future generations,'' can only be achieved by
educating future generations and training the future public and private
land managers. In turn, they will promote the value of public service
and continue the conservation legacy of natural resource management for
the United States.
The America's Great Outdoors initiative has generated a national
dialogue on how to reconnect Americans with the outdoors. The AGO
report released February 2011 includes a major emphasis on youth and
career pathways. The very first goal in the report is ``develop quality
conservation jobs and service opportunities that protect and restore
America's natural and cultural resources''.
The Department and the Forest Service, together with our sister
Departments and agencies, are working together to: establish a 21CSC;
improve federal capacity for recruiting, training and managing
volunteers and volunteer programs to create a new generation of citizen
stewards; and improve career pathways and to review barriers to jobs in
natural resource conservation and historic and cultural preservation.
The proposed amendments to the Public Lands Service Corps Act will
support these efforts to fully implement the President's America's
Great Outdoors initiative. We look forward to working with the
committee on this bill.
ON S. 447
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding S.
447 the Black Hills Cemetery Act.
S. 447, the Black Hills Cemeteries Act, would require the Secretary
to convey, without consideration, nine parcels of National Forest
System Land containing cemeteries located on National Forest System
land in the Black Hills National Forest to local entities. The
conveyance of these nine cemeteries is consistent with the Land and
Resource Management Plan for the Black Hills National Forest. The
Department does not object to making the Federal land available for use
as cemeteries, but it does not support conveyance of National Forest
System lands without consideration. It is long standing policy that the
United States receive market value for the sale, exchange, or use of
National Forest System land. This policy is well established in law,
including the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C. 9701),
section 102(9) of FLPMA, as well as numerous land exchange authorities.
In addition, we would the committee to consider a provision that
would require the recipient of each parcel cover the cost for heritage
recordation and evaluation of significance for the National Register in
addition to covering the land survey costs. The Forest Service would
prepare the land survey instructions for the recipient's land surveyor.
ON S. 736
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify regarding
S.736, the Alaska Subsistence Structure Protection Act of 2013.
The bill would provide relief to rural Alaskan cabin users who
depend on the Tongass National Forest for subsistence fishing, hunting
and gathering by capping the fee that may be charged for the special
use permits authorizing the use of the cabins.
The Department does not oppose S. 736, but would appreciate the
opportunity to work with Committee staff on technical changes to the
bill. These changes would better clarify which permits would be
eligible for the reduced fees.
We also note that the Forest Service has existing authority to
implement the changes in fees required by the bill, so legislation on
this topic may not be necessary. This concludes our testimony.
Senator Manchin. Ms. Connell.
STATEMENT JAMIE CONNELL, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY CARL
ROUNTREE, BLM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM AND COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Ms. Connell. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
numerous bills of interest to the BLM and the Department of the
Interior.
As the Senator said, I'm Jamie Connell. I'm the Acting
Deputy Director for the Bureau of Land Management. My job back
home is as the State Director for Montana, North and South
Dakota. So I appreciate your time having us here today.
I'm going to attempt to very briefly summarize our position
on these 16 bills and ask that the entirety of the statements
be included in the record.
Carl Rountree, the BLM Assistant Director for the National
Landscape Conservation System and Community Partnerships is
accompanying me today and will respond to questions on 6 of the
bills before us today. Those would be S. 241, S. 341, S. 342,
S. 353, S. 360 and S. 368.
The Administration strongly supports S. 368, the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization and S. 360,
the Public Lands Surface Conservation Corps Act.
Reauthorization of FLTFA provides an important land management
tool which allows the BLM to continue a rational process of
land disposal anchored in public participation and sound land
use planning while providing for land acquisitions to augment
and strengthen our Nation's treasured landscapes.
S. 360 strengthens and facilitates the use of the Public
Lands Corps program to help fulfill the Administration's
commitment to build the 21st century conservation service
corps. This national collaborative effort encourages young
people across America to serve their community and their
country while supporting the missions of many of the Department
of the Interior's agencies.
Four of the bills before the committee today include
important conservation designations.
S. 241, to designate wilderness within the Rio Grande del
Norte National Monument of New Mexico.
S. 341, to designate lands as wilderness within the McKenna
Peak area of Southwestern Colorado.
S. 342, to designate the Pine Forest Range Wilderness in
Humboldt County, Nevada.
S. 353, the Oregon Treasures Act which includes several
Oregon wilderness and Wild and Scenic River designations.
We support all of these designations and in some cases
would like to work with the committee and sponsors on minor
technical modifications.
Likewise we support S. 255, withdrawing Federal lands
within the North Fork Watershed of my home State of Montana in
the Flathead River from the mining laws and mineral leasing
laws which will help prevent the remarkable resources in the
Crown of the Continent ecosystem.
Several of the bills provided for various land conveyance
authorities.
S. 27, the Hill Creek Cultural Preservation and Energy
Development Act.
S. 159, Lyon County Economic Development and Conservation
Act.
S. 609, San Juan County Federal Land Conveyance Act.
S. 757, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Implementation Act.
Each of these bills provides important economic benefits to
local communities. The BLM is eager to resolve any remaining
issues so that they can move forward with our full support.
S. 340 provides for the finalization of Sealaska's land
entitlement under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. We
support the goal of completing ANCSA entitlements as soon as
possible through--though in general we defer to the Forest
Service on this bill.
The Administration supports Good Neighbor Authority and
looks forward to working the committee on minor technical
corrections to S. 327 which would expand and make permanent the
authority. This authority can be an important tool for the
efficient management of natural resources across landscapes.
S. 258 concerns grazing on public land. The BLM has a
shared interest in finding ways to make grazing permit renewal
less complex, costly and time consuming. We would like to work
with the committee to further these shared goals.
However, we cannot support S. 258 because it requires the
renewal of grazing permits without appropriate environmental
and public review. This would significantly limit the BLM's
ability to ensure land health standards are being met.
S. 366 would allow mining claimants a chance to cure their
failure to meet the required filing deadlines for the small
mining waiver. Additionally, the bill gives private relief to a
single mining claimant in Alaska.
The Department opposes this bill which would result in a
costly Administrative burden and special treatment for one
mining claimant.
Finally, I'm submitting a statement for the record on S.
256, to convey submerged lands to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands. The Department would strongly support
this bill if amended to address the issues outlined in the
statement for the record.
Thank you for your opportunity to testify. Mr. Rountree and
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Connell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jamie Connell, Acting Deputy Director, Bureau of
Land Management, Department of the Interior, on S. 342
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 342, the Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act. The
Department of the Interior supports S. 342, which designates the Pine
Forest Range Wilderness in Humboldt County, Nevada, on lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). We urge the Congress to move
swiftly to pass this bill.
It is gratifying to see Congress moving to protect this area that
was highlighted in Secretary Salazar's November 2011 Preliminary Report
on BLM Lands Deserving Protection as National Conservation Areas,
Wilderness or Other Conservation Designations. There is a long history
of bipartisan support in Congress for the conservation of America's
special places. Members from both parties have been essential to
passing every major public lands bill that has been enacted in recent
years. This type of cooperative and bipartisan approach to designating
special lands for protection as wilderness, national conservation
areas, or similar designations has historically been a regular practice
for Congress. The designation of the Pine Forest Range has strong
support from County government and local citizens. It is a wonderful
example of how people can come together to protect one of America's
real gems.
Background
The Pine Forest Range in northern Nevada's arid Great Basin is a
rare and exceptional area of abundant streams and clear, cold subalpine
lakes. Nestled in a cirque and fed by snowmelt and springs, these lakes
are not only visually stunning but also possess an excellent trout
fishery. The lakes are surrounded by a rare remnant population of white
bark and limber pines. Stands of quaking aspen and mountain mahogany
are also found throughout the proposed wilderness. Fall brings an
abundance of color found in few other places in northern Nevada.
The spectacular scenery and vistas, combined with outstanding
recreational opportunities, draw thousands of visitors annually.
Despite being one of the most highly visited recreational areas in the
region, the proposed wilderness still appears pristine. Day hiking,
horseback riding, rock climbing, hunting, fishing, and camping are all
popular in the area. Visitors enjoy a true primitive recreation
experience, without trails or facilities. Even during peak visitation
periods, solitude is easy to find in the rugged terrain. Abundant
wildlife coveted by sportsmen includes trophy mule deer, antelope,
bighorn sheep, mountain lion, and chukar.
A wide range of stakeholders began working cooperatively in 2009
and 2010 to bring together diverse interests in a grass-roots effort to
protect this special area. In the fall of 2010, the Humboldt County
Commission voted unanimously to approve the final recommendations of
the Pine Forest Range Working Group to designate the Pine Forest Range
Wilderness. The Nevada State Legislature subsequently passed a
resolution praising the process used in arriving at the consensus
represented by S. 342.
S. 342
S. 342 proposes to designate the 26,000-acre Pine Forest Range
Wilderness in Humboldt County, Nevada, on public land managed by the
BLM. This wilderness area is largely formed by the Blue Lakes and Alder
Creek Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Under the bill, approximately
1,150 acres of land within those WSAs would not be designated as
wilderness and would be released from WSA status, thereby allowing the
consideration of other uses.
Section 7 of S. 342 provides for land exchanges to improve the
manageability of the Pine Forest Range Wilderness Area and nearby
public lands while likewise allowing private landowners the opportunity
to consolidate their holdings. The land exchanges are discretionary and
would be completed consistent with the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) and other applicable laws. The BLM supports this
provision. In addition, these land acquisitions may be undertaken
through existing authorities such as purchase or donation.
The Pine Forest Range Wilderness meets the definition of
wilderness; the land and its community of life are largely untrammeled.
It has retained its primeval character and has been influenced
primarily by the forces of nature, with outstanding opportunities for
primitive recreation or solitude. The BLM strongly supports this
designation. We would like to work with the sponsor and the Committee
on some minor technical modifications.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 342 . We
look forward to the swift passage of this legislation designating the
Pine Forest Range Wilderness.
ON S. 341
Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 341, the San Juan
Mountains Wilderness Act. The Department of the Interior supports the
wilderness designation of the McKenna Peak area on lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Additional protection for the McKenna
Peak area was highlighted in Secretary Salazar's November 2011
Preliminary Report to Congress on BLM Lands Deserving Protection as
National Conservation Areas, Wilderness or Other Conservation
Designations. We urge swift Congressional action to protect this
special area. We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding
designations on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS).
Background
The McKenna Peak Wilderness Study Area (WSA) covers nearly 20,000
acres of BLM-managed lands in San Miguel and Dolores Counties in
southwestern Colorado. This WSA is currently managed by the BLM to
protect its wilderness characteristics while awaiting Congressional
action.
This area is rich in wildlife, including mule deer, elk, mountain
lions, black bear, and a variety of raptors. The McKenna Peak area is
also home to the Spring Creek wild horse herd. Geologically, the area
is quite diverse and includes 100 million year-old remnants of inland
seas (now black Mancos shale rich in invertebrate marine fossils). This
area offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities, including
hunting, hiking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, and cross-country
skiing, all of which are compatible with this wilderness designation.
S. 341
S. 341 is the result of a collaborative process, which has included
the Colorado Congressional delegation, county commissioners, adjacent
landowners, ranchers, conservationists, recreationists, and other
interested parties. The results are the proposed wilderness
designations on both BLM- and FS-managed lands in San Miguel, Ouray,
and San Juan Counties.
Section 3 of the bill designates 8,600 acres of the existing BLM-
managed McKenna Peak WSA as wilderness. The BLM supports this
designation. The legislation covers only those areas of the WSA in San
Miguel County. The remaining almost 11,000 acres of the WSA, which
include the eponymous McKenna Peak, are south of the proposed
wilderness in Dolores County and are not addressed in the legislation.
These acres will remain in WSA status, pending Congressional action.
The BLM and the Department support future designation of this area in
order to improve the manageability of the area. The BLM is currently
completing a careful review of the boundaries of the proposed
wilderness area to ensure manageability and would welcome the
opportunity to work with the sponsor on possible minor modifications.
Section 6 of S. 341 provides for the release from WSA status of
those portions of the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Study Area that were
not designated as Wilderness under Title II, Subtitle E of Public Law
111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. Section 2403 of
that Act designated the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area. However,
small portions of the underlying WSA totaling approximately 3,035 acres
were neither designated wilderness nor released from WSA status, which
would allow the consideration of a range of multiple uses. This release
would benefit the BLM's ongoing management by removing narrow strips
and scattered tracts of remaining WSA. These areas remain within the
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA), also designated
by Public Law 111-11 and will be managed consistent with the rest of
the NCA.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 341. We
look forward to its swift passage and to welcoming the covered area
into the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System.
ON S. 368
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 368, the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) Reauthorization. The
Administration strongly supports S. 368 and encourages the Congress to
move swiftly to reauthorize the FLTFA. Over the past decade, the
Department of the Interior has made a number of important acquisitions
using the FLTFA's provisions. Reauthorization of the FLTFA will allow
us to continue to use this critical tool for enhancing our Nation's
treasured landscapes.
Background
Congress enacted the FLTFA in July of 2000 as Title II of Public
Law 106-248. The FLTFA expired on July 25, 2011. Under the FLTFA, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) could sell public lands identified for
disposal through the land use planning process prior to July 2000, and
retain the proceeds from those sales in a special account in the
Treasury. The BLM and the other Federal land managing agencies were
then able to use those funds to acquire, from willing sellers,
inholdings within certain federally designated areas and lands that are
adjacent to those areas that contain exceptional resources. Lands were
able to be acquired within and/or adjacent to areas managed by the
National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
the U.S. Forest Service (FS), and the BLM. Over the life of the FLTFA,
approximately 27,200 acres were sold under this authority and
approximately 18,100 acres of high resource value lands were acquired.
The President's fiscal year 2014 Budget includes a proposal to
permanently reauthorize FLTFA, and allow lands identified as suitable
for disposal in recent land use plans to be sold using the FLTFA
authority. FLTFA sales revenues would continue to be used to fund the
acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands and the administrative
costs associated with conducting sales.
The 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides
clear policy direction to the BLM that public lands should generally be
retained in public ownership. However, section 203 of FLPMA allows the
BLM to identify lands as potentially available for disposal if they
meet one or more of the following criteria:
Lands consisting of scattered, isolated tracts that are
difficult or uneconomic to manage; or
Lands that were acquired for a specific purpose and are no
longer needed for that purpose; or
Lands that could serve important public objectives, such as
community expansion and economic development, which outweigh
other public objectives and values that could be served by
retaining the land in Federal ownership.
The BLM identifies lands that may be suitable for disposal through
its land use planning process, which involves full public
participation. Before the BLM can sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose
of these lands, however, it must undertake extensive environmental
impact analyses, clearances, surveys, and appraisals for the individual
parcels.
Before the enactment of the FLTFA, the BLM had the authority under
FLPMA to sell lands identified for disposal. The proceeds from those
sales were deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury. However,
because of the costs associated with those sales (including
environmental and cultural clearances, appraisals, and surveys), few
sales were undertaken. Rather, the BLM relied largely on land exchanges
to adjust land tenure. This can often be a less efficient process.
Once the FLTFA was enacted, the BLM developed guidance, processes,
and tools to complete the FLTFA land sales. Working cooperatively, the
BLM, NPS, FWS, and FS then developed guidance, processes, and tools for
subsequent FLTFA land acquisitions. The BLM markedly increased sales
under the program; however market conditions in the later years led to
less robust sales.
Since it was enacted, the BLM utilized FLTFA to sell 330 parcels
previously identified for disposal totaling 27,249 acres, with a total
value of approximately $117.4 million. Over the same time period, the
Federal government acquired 37 parcels totaling 18,535 acres, with a
total value of approximately $50.4 million using FLTFA authority.
Some lands identified for disposal and sold through the FLTFA
process were high-value lands in the urban interface. For example, in
2007 the BLM in Arizona sold at auction a 282-acre parcel in the
suburban Phoenix area for $7 million. However, many of the lands the
BLM identified for disposal prior to July 2000 that are eligible under
FLTFA are isolated or scattered parcels in remote areas with relatively
low value. Frequently, there is limited interest in acquiring these
lands, and the costs of preparing them for sale may exceed their market
value.
Since the inception of the FLTFA, the BLM deposited $112.8 million
into the Federal Land Disposal Account. That figure represents 96
percent of the total revenues from these sales. Approximately $4.7
million was transferred to the states in which the sales originated, as
provided for in individual Statehood Acts (typically 4 percent of the
sale price).
Using the FLTFA proceeds, the BLM, NPS, FWS, and FS acquired
significant inholdings and adjacent lands from willing sellers,
consistent with the provisions of the Act. For example, in November
2009 the BLM used FLTFA funds to complete the acquisition of 4,573
acres within the BLM's Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in
southwest Colorado. These inholdings encompass 25 documented cultural
sites, and archaeologists expect to record an additional 700
significant finds. The acquisition also included two particularly
important areas: ``Jackson's Castle,'' which is archaeologically
significant; and the ``Skywatcher Site,'' a one-of-a-kind, 1,000-year-
old solstice marker. The following are a few additional examples of
important FLTFA acquisitions:
Elk Springs Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC),
New Mexico/BLM--This 2,280-acre acquisition protects critical
elk wintering habitat.
Hells Canyon Wilderness, Arizona/BLM--A 640-acre parcel
constituting the last inholding within the Hells Canyon
Wilderness, located just 25 miles northwest of Phoenix.
Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming/NPS--This small (1.38
acres), but critical inholding within the Park was acquired and
protected from development.
Zion National Park, Utah/NPS--A combination of FLTFA and
Land and Water Conservation Fund monies were used to acquire
two 5-acre inholdings that overlook some of the Park's
outstanding geologic formations. These areas were previously
target for development.
Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon/FWS--This 92-
acre dairy farm on the outskirts of Pacific City, Oregon, was
slated for residential development and was acquired to protect
a significant portion of the world's population of the Semidi
Islands Aleutian Cackling Goose.
Six Rivers National Forest, California/FS--Over 4,400 acres
were acquired within the Goose Creek National Wild and Scenic
River corridor, preserving 4 miles of the river known for dense
stands of Douglas fir, redwoods, and Port Orford cedar.
S. 368
S. 368 would both reauthorize and enhance the original FLTFA
through four major changes. First, the bill extends the program to July
2021. The Department recommends eliminating the sunset altogether to
enable the BLM to plan for and implement this program on a longer-term
basis.
Second, under the original FLTFA, only lands identified for
disposal prior to July 25, 2000, were eligible to be sold. S. 368
modifies that restriction by allowing any lands identified for disposal
through the BLM's land use planning process by the date of enactment of
S. 368 to be sold through the FLTFA process. The Department supports
this change, which recognizes the usefulness and importance of the
BLM's land use planning process. However, we would recommend
eliminating this restriction rather than simply moving the date
forward.
The BLM currently oversees the public lands through 157 Resource
Management Plans (RMPs). Since 2000, the BLM has completed over 75 RMP
revisions and major plan amendments. Additionally, the BLM is currently
involved in planning efforts on 57 new RMPs, all of which the agency
expects to complete within the next three to four years. Planning
updates are an ongoing part of the BLM's mandate under FLPMA. In this
process, the BLM often makes incremental modifications to the plans,
and identifies lands that may be suitable for disposal. All of these
planning modifications or revisions are made in compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act, and are undertaken through a process
that invites full public participation. If the enactment date is again
utilized as the cut-off date, the BLM may, in a few years, face the
same challenges it does with the program today. Many of the high-valued
lands have been sold and the remaining eligible lands are isolated or
scattered parcels in remote areas with relatively low value.
Eliminating the restriction to provide more flexibility on the lands
eligible for FLTFA will allow the BLM to maintain a more consistent
program over time.
Third, the original FLTFA allowed acquisitions of inholdings
within, or adjacent to, certain Federal units such as BLM conservation
units, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and certain Forest
Service units if they existed prior to July 25, 2000. S. 368 eliminates
this limitation as well, and we support this change.
Finally, S. 368 adds exceptions to the FLTFA in recognition of
specific laws that modify the FLTFA with respect to some particular
locations. The FLTFA does not apply to lands available for sale under
the Santini-Burton Act (P.L. 96-586) and the Southern Nevada Public
Land Management Act (P.L 105-263). S. 368 additionally exempts lands
included in the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and
Development Act (P.L. 109-432) and the Lincoln County Conservation,
Recreation and Development Act (P.L. 108-424). Finally, a number of
provisions of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-
11) modify FLTFA at specific sites or for specific purposes. These
exceptions are also captured by S. 368.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of S.
368, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization. By
reauthorizing the FLTFA, the Congress will allow the BLM to continue a
rational process of land disposal that is anchored in public
participation and sound land use planning, while providing for land
acquisitions to augment and strengthen our Nation's treasured
landscapes.
ON S. 255
Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 255, the North Fork
Watershed Protection Act of 2013. The Department of the Interior
supports S. 255, which would withdraw Federal lands within the North
Fork watershed of Montana's Flathead River from all forms of location,
entry, and patent under the mining laws and from disposition under all
laws related to mineral or geothermal leasing. Enactment of S. 255
would mark an important milestone in the work occurring across multiple
jurisdictions to help preserve the remarkable resources in the Crown of
the Continent ecosystem.
Background
The Flathead River Basin, a key portion of an area known as the
Crown of the Continent ecosystem, spans the boundaries of the United
States and Canada. It includes part of the United States' Glacier
National Park and borders Canada's Waterton Lakes National Park. These
two parks comprise the world's first International Peace Park as well
as a World Heritage Site. The U.S. Forest Service's Flathead National
Forest is also located within the Flathead River watershed. The Bureau
of Land Management manages the Federal mineral estate underlying the
Flathead National Forest.
Running along the west side of the Continental Divide, the North
Fork of the Flathead River enters the United States at the Canadian
border and forms the western border of Glacier National Park until its
confluence with the Middle Fork of the Flathead River near the southern
end of Glacier National Park. The North Fork watershed, a sub-basin of
the Flathead River watershed, includes areas currently managed by the
National Park Service, the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service,
and some private landowners.
The Flathead River Basin is recognized for its natural resource
values, including wildlife corridors for large and medium-sized
carnivores, aquatic habitat, and plant species diversity. The area is
rich in cultural heritage resources, with archeological evidence of
human habitation starting 10,000 years ago. Several Indian tribes,
including the Blackfeet, the Salish, and the Kootenai, have a well-
established presence in the area. The area also has celebrated
recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, and backcountry
hiking and camping.
There has been interest in protecting the Crown of the Continent
resources for some time. On February 18, 2010, the State of Montana and
the Province of British Columbia executed a Memorandum of Understanding
which addresses a myriad of issues related to the Flathead River Basin
on both sides of the U.S.--Canada border. The intention of Part I.A. of
that memorandum is to ``[r]emove mining, oil and gas, and coal
development as permissible land uses in the Flathead River Basin.''
The Flathead River Basin contains Federally-owned subsurface
mineral estate under National Forest System lands that the Federal
government has leased for oil and gas development. At the time
legislation was initially proposed in 2010, there were 115 oil and gas
leases in the North Fork watershed that the BLM issued between 1982 and
1985. The leases, which cover over 238,000 acres, are inactive and
under suspension as part of the 1985 court case Conner v. Burford. At
the request of Montana Senators Max Baucus and John Tester,
leaseholders have voluntarily relinquished 76 leases consisting of
almost 182,000 acres. The BLM has not offered any other leases in the
Flathead National Forest since the Conner v. Burford litigation
suspended the existing leases in 1985.
The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for the surface management
of National Forest System land; however, as noted earlier, the
Secretary of the Interior and the BLM are responsible for administering
the Federal subsurface mineral estate under the Mining Law of 1872, the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and various mineral leasing acts. With
respect to locatable minerals and oil and gas resources, the Forest
Service has authority to regulate the effects of mineral operations
upon National Forest System resources. The BLM only issues mineral
leases for locatable minerals and oil and gas resources upon
concurrence of the surface management agency and always works
cooperatively with the agency to ensure that management goals and
objectives for mineral exploration and development activities are
achieved, that operations are conducted to minimize effects on natural
resources, and that the land affected by operations is reclaimed.
S. 255
S. 255 withdraws all Federal lands or interest in lands, comprised
of approximately 430,000 acres of the Flathead National Forest, within
the North and Middle Fork watersheds of the Flathead River from all
forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and from
disposition under all laws related to mineral or geothermal leasing. We
note that National Park acreage within the watershed is already
unavailable for mineral entry. S. 255 does not affect valid, existing
rights, including the 39 leases in the North Fork watershed that are
suspended under the Conner v. Burford litigation. The Department fully
supports S. 233 as it furthers the goal of preserving the important
resources of this region.
The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which extends from
Canada into the United States, is one of the great protected ecosystems
on the North American continent. A 2010 World Heritage Center/
International Union for the Conservation of Nature Report noted that
the International Peace Park is ``one of the largest, most pristine,
intact, and best protected expanses of natural terrain in North
America. It provides the wide range of non-fragmented habitats and key
ecological connections that are vital for the survival and security of
wildlife and plants in the Waterton-Glacier property and the Flathead
watershed.'' Retaining this expanse of natural landscape in the Crown
of the Continent ecosystem is of vital importance for providing
ecosystem connectivity, which is essential for the growth and survival
of plants and animals in the region. S. 255 will help accomplish this
goal.
The Department of the Interior is also committed to maintaining the
ecological integrity of Glacier National Park, one of the most
noteworthy natural and cultural treasures of our Nation. Preserving the
region's and the park's water resources is also critical. The rich
aquatic ecosystems provide breeding and feeding habitats for a variety
of important species, and the Department recognizes the importance of
maintaining critical habitat corridors when planning for resources
uses. S. 255 will help protect and preserve the important resources of
the greater Crown of the Continent ecosystem, including those within
Glacier National Park.
Conclusion
The Department supports S. 255 and commends the many parties
involved in protecting the Nor th Fork of the Flathead River and the
important resources shared by the United States and Canada. We hope
that this legislation and the efforts of the federal and state/
provincial governments add to the important legacy of conservation in
the Glacier/Waterton Lakes area and Flathead River basin.
ON S. 258
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on S.258, the Grazing
Improvement Act. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is dedicated to a
broad range of stewardship goals, including the long-term health and
viability of the public rangelands. Our Nation's rangelands provide and
support a variety of goods, services, and values important to
Americans. In addition to being an important source of forage for
livestock, healthy rangelands conserve soil, store and filter water,
sequester carbon, provide a home for an abundance of wildlife, provide
scenic beauty and are the setting for many forms of outdoor recreation.
The BLM recognizes that the conservation and sustainable use of
rangelands is important to those who make their living on these
landscapes-including public rangeland permittees. Public land livestock
operations are important to the economic well-being and cultural
identity of the West and to rural Western communities. Livestock
grazing is an integral part of BLM's multiple-use mission, and at the
right levels and timing, can serve as an important vegetation
management tool, improving wildlife habitat and reducing risk of
catastrophic wildfire.
The BLM is committed to collaborating with those who work on the
public lands and takes seriously its challenge to conserve and manage
healthy rangelands for current and future generations.
The Department shares the Sub-committee's interest in identifying
opportunities for increasing efficiencies in public land grazing
administration, as well as finding ways to make permit renewal less
complex, costly, and time-consuming. The BLM would like to work with
the Committee to further these shared goals. However, the Department
cannot support S. 258 as it limits the BLM's ability to provide for
appropriate environmental review and public involvement-critical
components of the BLM's multiple-use management of the public lands.
The Department looks forward to continuing a dialogue with the Congress
on these important matters.
Background
The BLM manages over 17,000 livestock grazing permits and leases
for 12.4 million AUMs (animal unit months) across 155 million acres of
public lands in the West. Since 1999, the BLM has evaluated the health
of the rangelands based on standards and guidelines that were developed
with extensive input from the ranching community, as well as from
scientists, conservationists, and other Federal and state agencies. The
BLM collects monitoring and assessment data to compare current
conditions with the standards and land use plan objectives. This
information is used to complete environmental assessments, to develop
alternative management actions, and to modify grazing management as
needed.
The BLM administers the range program through issuance of grazing
permits or leases. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)
provides for a 10-year (or less) term for grazing permits. In a typical
year, the BLM processes up to 2,000 permit renewals or transfers. In
1999 and 2000, the BLM saw a spike in permit renewals, when over 7,200
permits were due for renewal. The BLM was unable to process all those
permits before expiration, which resulted in a backlog of grazing
permit renewals that remains today. By the end of the 2013 Fiscal Year,
the BLM anticipates that a backlog of 4,964 unprocessed permits will
remain. Congress has assisted the BLM since Fiscal Year 2004 by adding
language to Appropriations measures that allow grazing leases and
permits to continue in effect until the agency has completed processing
a renewal, transfer, or waiver. The BLM is committed to eliminating the
backlog of grazing permit renewals and to issuing permits in the year
they expire. An increase in appeals and litigation of grazing
management decisions continues to pose significant workload and
resource challenges for the BLM.
The BLM will continue to focus on grazing permits for the most
environmentally sensitive allotments, using authorities Congress
provided in the FY 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act concerning
grazing permit renewals and transfers. This strategy will allow the BLM
to address a wide array of critical resource management issues through
its land health assessments and grazing decisions. Additionally, this
strategy will help ensure that the backlog of unprocessed permits
consists of the least environmentally sensitive allotments that are
more custodial in nature and/or that are already meeting land health
standards.
S. 258
S. 258 provides for automatic renewal of all expired, transferred,
or waived permits, and categorically excludes all permit renewals,
reissuance, or transfers from preparation of an environmental analysis
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if the decision
continues current grazing management of the allotment. Terms and
conditions of the permit would continue until a permit is later renewed
in full compliance with NEPA and other Federal laws. The bill does not
first require a determination that the permittee is meeting land health
standards. S. 258 doubles the duration of grazing permits from 10 to 20
years, and stipulates that livestock crossing and trailing permits and
transfers of grazing preference are exempt from analysis under NEPA.
The Department supports the concept of having the flexibility to
issue longer term permits in certain circumstances, as well as the
transfer provision that is currently in place under the FY 2012
Consolidated Appropriations Act. That provision is expected to reduce
the permit renewal workload in 2013 by about 700 permits. The number of
transfers needing processing each year is unpredictable, posing
significant challenges to the BLM as it works to manage staff and other
resources.
S. 258 includes provisions that the Department cannot support since
they provide for automatic permit or lease renewal without requiring
further analysis or assurances the permittee is meeting land health
standards. The bill limits the BLM's ability to provide for appropriate
environmental review and public involvement. S. 258 would result in the
majority of permits being renewed under a categorical exclusion. The
engagement of the public through the environmental review process under
NEPA is a crucial component of the BLM's multiple-use management of the
public lands. In summary, while S. 258 contains provisions that would
expedite permitting, the Department cannot support it because of the
overarching impact the bill could have on the 155 million acres of
public lands used for livestock grazing, potentially affecting other
valid uses and the health of the land itself.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on S. 258. The
BLM looks forward to working with the Congress to develop improvements
to the grazing permit renewal process while maintaining the integrity
of NEPA, the Nation's bedrock environmental and citizen involvement
law, and FLPMA, our multiple-use statute requiring consideration of
many uses and values of the public lands. I will be pleased to answer
any questions.
ON S. 27
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify
on S. 27, the Hill Creek Cultural Preservation and Energy Development
Act. The Department supports the goals of S. 27, and we could support
the bill if amended as discussed below. The Department recognizes that
we have a unique trust responsibility to the Ute Tribe; and therefore
we are committed to finding an equitable solution.
Background
In 1948, Congress, through P.L. 80-440, extended the boundary of
the Uintah and Ouray Reservation by approximately 900 square miles to
include what is generally known as the ``Hill Creek Extension.'' The
Act transferred the Federal surface estate to the Tribe, while the
mineral estate in those parts of the area affected by then existing
withdrawals was reserved to the Federal government. Furthermore, that
Act as amended in 1955 (P.L. 84-263), authorized the State of Utah to
relinquish state sections for the benefit of the Tribe and subsequently
select Federal lands (including the mineral interest in land) of equal
value outside of the Hill Creek Extension area.
The State of Utah's School and Institutional Trust Land
Administration (SITLA) holds the mineral interest in about 28 square
miles (approximately 18,000 acres) within the southern portion of the
Hill Creek Extension in Grand County, while the surface ownership is
held in trust for the Tribe. The Tribe would like to obtain the mineral
estate underlying tribal lands in the Grand County portion of the Hill
Creek Extension in order to prevent development on lands that have
special significance to the Tribe. However, the Tribe does not object
to development of other mineral estate, retained by the Federal
government, within the Hill Creek Extension in Uintah County.
SITLA proposed to relinquish their mineral estate within the Hill
Creek Extension in Grand County in exchange for similar acreage of
Federal mineral estate in Uintah County, also within the Hill Creek
Extension. However, the 1955 law specified that the selection by the
state should take place ``outside of the area hereby withdrawn,'' and
therefore outside of the Hill Creek Extension.
S. 27
S. 27 proposes to amend the 1948 and 1955 Acts to permit
relinquishment of mineral estate in exchange for similar acreage of
Federal mineral estate within the Hill Creek Extension. The legislation
further provides that the transaction should be on an acre-for-acre
basis and establishes a limited overriding interest for both the United
States and SITLA in the lands exchanged.
The Department has no objection to allowing for the selection by
SITLA of mineral estate within the Hill Creek Extension and supports
that provision of the legislation. However, the 1948 and 1955 laws as
well as FLPMA require that these transfers be of equal value. The per-
acre value of mineral estate can vary dramatically from one acre to
another, and this area of Utah has significant oil and gas resources.
The legislation proposes to address any difference in parcel value
by reserving for each conveying party a financial interest in the
mineral estate being transferred. However, as written, the overriding
interest fails to acknowledge the potential change in value of the
federal minerals. The royalty rate specified for the financial interest
is the royalty rate in effect today, and fails to account for the
possibility of a changed royalty rate in the future. We believe that
the overriding interest should be based on the Federal royalty rate at
the time the lease or permit is issued. The Department would also like
the opportunity to work on other technical amendments with the Sponsor
and the Committee.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. The Department would
welcome the opportunity to resolve these issues for the benefit of the
Ute Indian Tribe and protect land that has special significance in a
manner that also protects the fiduciary interest of the Federal
government.
ON S. 241
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 241, the R!o Grande
del Norte National Conservation Area Establishment Act. On March 25,
2013, President Obama designated the R!o Grande del Norte National
Monument on 242,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in northern New Mexico. This designation closely
mirrors the National Conservation Area (NCA) designation in S. 241.
However, section 4 of S. 241 also includes the designation of two
wilderness areas within the new R!o Grande del Norte National
Monument--the proposed 13,320-acre Cerro del Yuta Wilderness and 8,000-
acre R!o San Antonio Wilderness. The Department supports the
designation of these two new wilderness areas.
Background
The Rio Grande del Norte National Monument lies north of Taos on
the border with Colorado and straddles New Mexico's Taos and Rio Arriba
Counties. Rising in stark contrast from the monument's broad expanse,
the Cerro de la Olla, Cerro San Antonio, and Cerro del Yuta volcanic
cones provide visible reminders of the area's volatile past. Between
these mountains, the dramatic gorge of the Rio Grande Wild & Scenic
River is carved into the landscape, revealing the dark basalt beneath
the surface of the Taos plateau.
The proposed Cerro del Yuta Wilderness has at its centerpiece a
symmetrical volcanic dome soaring to over 10,000 feet in altitude.
Covered by ponderosa, Douglas fir, aspen, and spruce on the north side,
and pinyon and juniper on the south side, the mountain provides
important habitat for wildlife, including the herds of elk that draw
hunters to the area. The volcanic dome provides an outstanding
opportunity for peak climbing and the forested slopes create a strong
sense of solitude.
The proposed Rio San Antonio Wilderness consists of a flat plain
bisected by the R!o San Antonio. This grassland plain is dotted with
occasional juniper, while the river sits two-hundred feet below the
surface of the plateau at the bottom of a rugged gorge, the depths of
which provide a microclimate for riparian vegetation, Douglas fir, and
spruce. Visitors can find outstanding opportunities for solitude as
they explore the gorge, which abruptly drops out of sight from the rest
of the area. Protecting these characteristics will help to ensure that
tourists will continue to visit the area, bringing economic benefits to
the local community.
S. 241, Section 4
S.241 (section 4) designates two wilderness areas on BLM-managed
lands within the new national monument-the proposed 13,420-acre Cerro
del Yuta Wilderness and 8,000-acre Rio San Antonio Wilderness. Both of
these areas meet the definition of wilderness outlined in the
Wilderness Act of 1964: they are largely untouched by humans, have
outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined
recreation, are over 5,000 acres in size, and contain important
geological, biological, and scientific features. We support the
designation of these areas as wilderness. The BLM would be happy to
work with the Sponsor and the Committee to create a new map for the
legislation reflecting both the existing national monument and the two
proposed wilderness areas.
Conclusion
President Obama's designation of the Rio Grande del Norte National
Monument was a tribute to both the area's extraordinary value and the
steadfast support for protecting this magnificent place. The Department
supports S.241 in its designation of some of the new national
monument's wildest lands as wilderness.
ON S. 327
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 327, the Good Neighbor Forestry Act. The bill authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements or
contracts with a state forester to provide forest, rangeland, and
watershed restoration and protection services on lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Administration supports Good
Neighbor Authority and we would like to work with the Committee to make
some minor technical corrections. We welcome opportunities to enhance
our capability to efficiently manage our natural resources through a
landscape scale approach that crosses a diverse spectrum of land
ownerships.
Background
The BLM is increasingly taking a landscape-scale approach to
managing natural resources on the public lands. Recent drought cycles,
catastrophic fires, large-scale insect and disease outbreaks, the
impacts of global climate change, and invasions of harmful non-native
species all threaten the health of the public lands. They also tax a
land manager's ability to ensure ecological integrity, while
accommodating increased demands for public land uses across the
landscape.
The BLM engages in land restoration and hazardous fuels reduction
activities with interagency partners and affected landowners to expand
and accelerate forest ecosystem restoration. The ``Good Neighbor''
concept provides a mechanism to facilitate treatments across the
landscape, inclusive of all ownerships, and enhances relationships
between Federal, state, and private land managers.
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2001, Congress authorized the U.S. Forest
Service to allow the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) to conduct
activities such as hazardous fuels reduction on U.S. Forest Service
lands when performing similar activities on adjacent state or private
lands. The BLM received similar authority in Colorado in FY 2004, as
did the U.S. Forest Service in Utah. The BLM used this ``Good
Neighbor'' authority beginning in 2006 in the agency's Royal Gorge
Field Office. Through an assistance agreement with the CSFS, the BLM
accomplished a fuels reduction and mitigation project within and
adjacent to the Gold Hill Subdivision of Boulder County. The Gold Hill
Project treated a total of 372 acres of wildland urban interface
consisting of 122 acres of BLM land, 27 acres of U.S. Forest Service
land, and 223 acres of private land. All of these acres were identified
as priorities within the Gold Hill Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Through the assistance agreement, the CSFS delineated the areas to be
treated within the Gold Hill Project, managed the project, administered
contracts, monitored firewood removal, and monitored forestry and fuels
projects on BLM and U.S. Forest Service lands. No timber was harvested
or sold from the BLM lands. The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service
conducted the project planning and fulfilled NEPA requirements on their
respective lands.
The project area consisted of small parcels of Federal lands
interspersed with state and private lands. Since all the landowners
used the same State contract, treatments were accomplished concurrently
and with consistency in treatment methods, thereby achieving hazardous
fuels reductions across a larger area to reduce the risk of wildfire.
Efficiencies were also realized by utilizing a single contractor to
treat one large project area. The BLM also realized savings in
personnel resources. Although the project area was located nearly 200
miles from the BLM field office, CSFS personnel were in the immediate
vicinity and were able to conduct the field work for the BLM. In
addition, the CSFS regularly worked with private landowners in the area
and easily gained access through the private lands to conduct work on
the Federal lands, which allowed the work to begin quickly. Simplified
state contracting procedures also expedited the project. The project
was completed in 2008.
A February 2009 GAO report examined state service contracting
procedures regarding transparency, competitiveness, and oversight, and
found that the state requirements generally addressed each of these
areas. (GAO-09-277). The GAO issued two recommendations to the BLM: 1)
To develop written procedures for Good Neighbor timber sales in
collaboration with each state to better ensure accountability for
federal timber; and 2) To document how prior experiences with Good
Neighbor projects offer ways to enhance the use of the authority in the
future and make such information available to current and prospective
users of the authority. The BLM completed the final corrective action
plan incorporating these suggestions in September of 2010.
S. 327
S. 327 provides for the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
enter into cooperative agreements and contracts with state foresters in
any state west of the 100th meridian, to provide forest, rangeland, and
watershed restoration and protection services on National Forest System
land or BLM land. The success that the BLM experienced in using the
Good Neighbor authority in Colorado as a cross-boundary management tool
would be available under S. 375 to all BLM-managed lands throughout the
west. The authority provided by the bill is discretionary; each BLM
office could determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not the Good
Neighbor authority is a desirable option. All Good Neighbor projects
would be undertaken in conformance with land use plans and comply with
the National Environmental Policy Act, if applicable.
Section 3(a) of the bill would authorize the Secretary to enter
into a cooperative agreement or contract with a state Forester. For
clarification, the BLM suggests an amendment to the language to add
``notwithstanding the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements Act.''
The provisions in section 3(b) authorize services to include
activities that treat insect-infected trees; reduce hazardous fuels;
and any other activities to restore or improve forest, rangeland, and
watershed health, including fish and wildlife habitat. There is no
requirement that the BLM-managed lands be adjacent to state or private
lands to be eligible for services. This expansion of authority could be
beneficial in watershed restoration projects where state and Federal
lands might not be immediately adjacent to one another, but are within
the same watershed.
Accordingly, this expanded authority could enhance the
effectiveness of landscape-scale treatment.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify about Good Neighbor
Authority and S. 327. The Department of the Interior and the BLM
welcome opportunities to engage in efforts that can advance cooperation
of all landowners, improve the effectiveness of restoration and fuels
treatments, and provide cost-effective tools for managing natural
resources.
ON S. 366
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S. 366, which
would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to allow mining
claimants a chance to ``cure'' their failure to meet the required
filing deadlines. This bill would also give private relief to one
particular mining claimant whose mining claims have been deemed
abandoned for failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations,
and would give that claimant the opportunity to obtain fee title to the
reinstated mining claims from the Government.
The Department of the Interior opposes S. 366 because of the
enormous administrative burden it would generate, and because it
singles out one mining claimant for special treatment and leaves open
the question as to how other mining claimants in similar situations
would be affected.
Background
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66
Sec. Sec. 10101 to 10106, 107 Stat. 312, 405-07 (Aug. 10, 1993)
(maintenance fee statute), established an annual maintenance fee for
unpatented mining claims, mill sites, and tunnel sites. This annual
maintenance fee is currently set by regulation at $140 per lode mining
claim or site and $140 per every 20 acres or portion thereof for a
placer claim. The maintenance fee statute also gave the Secretary of
the Interior the discretion to waive the annual maintenance fee for
certain ``small miners''--mining claimants who hold 10 or fewer claims
or sites.
Following the enactment of the maintenance fee statute, the
Department promulgated regulations that exercised the Secretary's
discretion to allow the ``small miner waiver.'' These regulations state
that in order to qualify for this ``small miner waiver'' under the
maintenance fee statute, the claimant must, among other things, file a
maintenance fee waiver request that certifies he and all related
parties hold 10 or fewer mining claims or sites. Under the original
regulations, the deadline for filing the maintenance fee waiver request
for the upcoming assessment year was August 31, which was the same day
as the statutory deadline for filing annual maintenance fees. When
Congress changed the statutory annual maintenance fee deadline to
September 1, the Department changed the deadline for maintenance fee
waiver requests to also be September 1 for the coming assessment year.
The Secretary's decision to make the regulatory deadline for filing
maintenance fee waiver requests the same as the statutory deadline for
paying annual mining claim maintenance fees took into consideration the
statutory constraint that maintenance fee waivers could not legally or
practically be sought any later than the deadline for the maintenance
fee itself.
The same year that Congress changed the deadline for paying the
maintenance fee to September 1, it amended the maintenance fee statute
to allow claimants seeking a ``small miner waiver'' to cure a
``defective'' waiver certification. Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, Pub. L. No. 105-
277, 112 Stat. 2681-235 (1998) (codified as amended at 30 U.S.C. Sec.
28f(d)(3)). The statute as amended required the BLM to give claimants
filing timely ``defective'' maintenance fee waiver requests notice of
the defect and 60 days to cure the defect or pay the annual maintenance
fee due for the applicable assessment year.
Another change in the administration of mining laws and regulations
occurred in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-332 Sec. Sec. 112-113, 108
Stat. 2499, 2519 (Sept. 30, 1994), which placed a moratorium on the
patenting of new mining claims or sites, and the further processing of
existing patent applications; this moratorium has continued unbroken
through subsequent appropriations language. The processing of a patent
application to completion can result in the transfer of fee title or
``patent'' to the claimant for the Federal lands where the claims and
sites are located.
Congress provided an exemption from the patenting moratorium for
applicants who had satisfied the requirements of the Mining Law of 1872
for obtaining a patent before the moratorium went into effect. Only
patent applications for which a ``First Half of Mineral Entry-Final
Certificate'' (FHFC) had been issued were considered exempt or
``grandfathered'' from the moratorium. Over 600 patent applications
were pending with the BLM when the moratorium went into effect on
October 1, 1994. Of those, 405 patent applications had received a FHFC
by September 30, 1994, and were determined to be ``grandfathered'' from
the moratorium. Mining claimants in a ``grandfathered'' patent
application are not required to comply with the maintenance fee statute
after the FHFC was issued.
The remaining 221 patent applications were considered ``non-
grandfathered'' and subject to the moratorium. The BLM did no further
processing of these patent applications and the mining claimants were
responsible to continue to meet annual maintenance requirements--timely
payment of the annual maintenance fee, or filing a small miner waiver
and completing the required annual assessment work--in order to keep
their mining claims active and their ``non-grandfathered'' patent
applications pending.
S. 366
S. 366 (Section 1(a)) would amend the maintenance fee statute that
requires the BLM to provide holders of 10 or fewer mining claims or
sites with written notice of any ``defect'' in their maintenance fee
waiver request and an opportunity to cure the defective, but timely,
filing. Unlike the current maintenance fee statute, failure to timely
file the waiver request would be considered a ``defect'' under S. 366.
As under the current statute, mining claimants would have 60 days from
the receipt of written notice to correct that defect or pay the
applicable maintenance fee. Sec. 1(a) also purports to provide the same
60-day cure period for an untimely ``affidavit of annual labor
associated with the application and required application fees.''
The BLM opposes the provision in Sec. 1(a) to amend the maintenance
fee statute to make failure to timely file a small miner fee waiver
request a curable ``defect.'' The BLM also opposes the provision in S.
366 purporting to allow claimants to ``cure'' defective affidavits of
annual assessment work filings, including failure to timely file the
affidavits as required by section 314 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). Currently, the cure provision in 30
U.S.C. Sec. 28f(d)(3) applies only to maintenance fee waiver requests,
and it is unclear whether the legislation would extend the opportunity
to cure the failure to timely file an affidavit of annual assessment
work to any claimant who fails to timely file the affidavit, or only to
those claimants who have submitted a defective small miner waiver
request.
BLM's primary concern with the proposed legislation, however, is
that it would effectively eliminate the deadline for filing a small
miner waiver. Defining an untimely small miner waiver filing as
``defective'' would require the BLM to accept late filings after the
deadline, no matter how late. This change will place an excessive
administrative review and notification burden on the BLM and would
vastly increase the cost of administering the small miner waiver.
Further, it would enable a mining claimant to avoid filing the waiver
and hold the claims or sites in suspense until the BLM is able to
identify the deficiency and notify the claimant.
Under Sec. 1(a) of S. 366, if a mining claimant files either an
untimely maintenance fee payment, an untimely waiver request, or fails
to make any filing at all, including a maintenance fee payment, the BLM
would no longer be able to simply declare the mining claim or site void
by operation of law, as authorized under the current maintenance fee
statute since 1994. Rather, under this new provision, if any claimant
fails to pay the annual maintenance fee or file a maintenance fee
waiver request by the deadline, the BLM will have to first determine
whether each and every claimant who failed to timely pay maintenance
fees is qualified as a small miner and, if so, give notice and
opportunity to cure--whether or not the claimant had any intention of
paying the fee or filing a maintenance fee waiver request.
These additional administrative steps would be required even if the
holder of the mining claim or site had not filed a maintenance fee
waiver in the past, for two reasons. First, fewer than 13,000 mining
claimants among those who are eligible for a maintenance fee waiver
each year actually request a waiver, and S. 366 does not restrict the
``cure'' provisions to those claimants who had intended to file a
waiver but missed the deadline. Second, verifying eligibility for the
``cure'' provisions of S. 366 would be required each year for any
mining claimant who missed the payment deadline because eligibility for
a maintenance fee waiver depends on the number of mining claims and
sites held by the claimant ``and related parties'' on the date that the
maintenance fee payment was due (30 U.S.C. Sec. 28f(d)). The BLM would
also have to determine if the claimant had any ``related parties'' that
owned claims or sites which would make the claimant ineligible if
together the claimant and related parties owned more than 10 claims or
sites. Since claimants may be a ``silent'' related party to
corporations or other individual claimants owning more than 10 claims
or sites, it would be almost impossible for the BLM to determine
factual eligibility of all claimants.
It would be costly and difficult for the BLM to assess whether
every mining claimant who either makes an untimely filing or fails to
file anything is eligible to invoke the ``cure'' provisions of S. 366.
Moreover, because the agency would have no way to determine if a
claimant holding 10 or fewer claims or sites had simply decided not to
pay the fee or file the fee waiver request and intentionally relinquish
his claims, the BLM would have to send a ``defect'' notice to all such
claimants who fail to either timely pay their maintenance fees or
timely file a maintenance fee waiver request and give them the
opportunity to cure. This effectively extends the payment deadline for
any claimant holding 10 or fewer mining claims by removing any penalty
for failing to pay in a timely manner.
In addition, this increased administrative burden would so
drastically increase the processing time for all mining claimants as to
allow some claimants to continue to hold and work their claims for
months or potentially years after what would have been forfeiture by
operation of law under the current statute without providing payment.
It would be challenging for the BLM to reliably determine if a mining
claimant intended to relinquish his mining claim or site. Action on the
part of individuals wishing to maintain a claim to a Federal resource
is a basic responsibility found in many of our Federal programs.
Relieving individuals of this basic responsibility is contrary to the
interest of the general public that owns the property.
In addition, the BLM opposes the bill's provisions in Sec. 1(b)
under ``Transition Rules'' on behalf of the mining claimant who
forfeited his claims for failure to meet the filing requirements
discussed above. Section 1(b) is essentially a private relief bill that
gives special treatment to the claimant, allowing his mining claims to
be reinstated, and allowing him to have his patent application
considered ``grandfathered'' from the patent moratorium.
The mining claims described under Sec. 1(b) belonged to a claimant
from Girdwood, Alaska. The claimant owned nine mining claims located in
the Chugach National Forest in southeastern Alaska. The claimant had
filed a patent application for these mining claims, but his application
had not received a FHFC by the deadline. As such, his patent
application was considered ``non-grandfathered'' and his mining claims
were subject to ongoing annual maintenance requirements. The BLM
determined these mining claims to be statutorily abandoned in January
2005 when the claimant failed to file his annual assessment work
documents in accordance with FLPMA, and the Interior Board of Land
Appeals (IBLA) subsequently upheld the BLM's decision. The bill would
give the claimant the opportunity to ``cure'' the defects that led to
his mining claims being declared abandoned and void, presumably under
the amended version of the statute proposed in this legislation.
Sec. 1(b)(1) of the bill would also consider the claimant ``to have
received first half final certificate'' for these voided mining claims
before September 30, 1994, thereby ``grandfathering'' his patent
application from the patent moratorium. Even if this claimant had
complied with annual FLPMA requirements, his patent application was not
considered ``grandfathered'' under the guidelines imposed through
Congress. Congress was clear that the exemption from the patenting
moratorium applied only to applicants who had satisfied the
requirements of the Mining Law of 1872 for obtaining a patent before
the moratorium went into effect. Singling out this claimant and patent
application to receive special treatment by considering his patent
application ``grandfathered'' is unfair to the other 220 pending ``non-
grandfathered'' patent applications. Additionally, a portion of the
land formerly covered by these claims is now closed to mineral entry,
because the State of Alaska has filed Community Grant Selection under
the authority of the Alaska Statehood Act. Considering the claimant's
patent application ``grandfathered'' would give him priority over the
State of Alaska with respect to these lands, and may mean that he,
rather than the State of Alaska, would obtain the fee title.
The BLM's final concern with respect to this legislation--requiring
the BLM to consider failure to timely file a maintenance fee waiver
certificate a curable ``defect''--is that the bill is unclear as to the
retroactive effects on other small miners who have forfeited or
abandoned their mining claims because they failed to timely file a
small miner waiver or affidavit of annual assessment work. This
includes those small miners who have lost their challenges at the IBLA
of BLM decisions declaring their claims forfeited or abandoned
Furthermore, the Department of Justice advises that, as a practical
matter, it seems likely that small miners will pursue a ``cure'' for
failure to pursue a small miner waiver only where the claim owner
cannot simply relocate that claim, which might occur if, for example,
intervening rights have been granted or the land has been conveyed or
assigned other uses. If that has happened, then reinstating any
forfeited or abandoned mining claims would create confusion, and
generate litigation, and could arguably create takings liability on the
part of the United States.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on S. 366.
ON S. 353
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 353, the Oregon Treasures Act. The Department supports S. 353 and
would welcome the opportunity to work with the Chairman on some minor
modifications to this legislation. S. 353 includes wilderness and wild
and scenic river designations in three areas of Oregon: Cathedral Rock
and Horse Heaven along the John Day River, the Wild Rogue in
southwestern Oregon, and the Molalla River in northern Oregon. This
legislation would conserve and protect these special places that are
treasured both locally and nationally.
Cathedral Rock & Horse Heaven Wilderness
Background
Along the western bank of the John Day Wild and Scenic River are
lands proposed to become the Cathedral Rock Wilderness. The lands
planned for designation range from the cliffs and canyons along the
river heading westerly to steep rolling hills punctuated by rocky
escarpments. Wagner Mountain is located in the center of the proposed
wilderness and is the highest point in the area. The geology is
dominated by ancient volcanics, composed of andesite flows, plugs, and
domes. The entire area is covered in rhyolite ash-flows which produce
dramatic red, white, and buff colored soils. Hunters and hikers alike
enjoy the breathtaking scenery as well as the resident mule deer and
elk populations, while rafters brave the John Day's rapids. Cultural
sites showcase prehistoric fossils, stone tools, and rock art.
Four miles to the southwest of the Cathedral Rock region is the
proposed Horse Heaven Wilderness. The name reflects Oregon's pioneer
past when the flawless grasslands of the areas were a closely guarded
secret. Today that secret is out, and a wide range of recreationists
enjoy the area's many opportunities. At more than 4,000 feet, Horse
Heaven Mountain serves as a worthy centerpiece to a diverse landscape
illustrating Oregon's high and low countries. Traveling south, rolling
plains and steep terrain dominate the area; to the west, Muddy Creek is
the area's lone perennial stream. Prairie steppes throughout connect
hearty shrubs and woodlands that demonstrate steadfast resolve to
thrive in the rocky soil.
S. 353, Section 2
The legislation provides for the exchange of lands between three
private parties and the Federal government which would allow the
consolidation of fragmented land patterns, the designation of two new
potential wilderness areas, and a process for those areas becoming
designated wilderness and components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. Should the land exchanges be completed, the
additional land would greatly enhance the wilderness quality and
manageability of the two areas proposed for wilderness.
The bill (section 2(b)) outlines a series of land exchanges with
three private parties. Under section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has the
authority to undertake land exchanges that are in the public interest.
Exchanges allow the BLM to acquire environmentally-sensitive lands
while transferring public lands into private ownership for local needs
and the consolidation of scattered tracts. The lands proposed for
exchange out of Federal ownership are largely scattered sections of
public land intermingled with private land. In principle, the BLM
supports the land exchanges envisioned by section 2(b); however, we
would like the opportunity to continue to work with the sponsor and the
Committee to address concerns specifically in the areas of public
access and the protection of cultural resources.
It is the Department's understanding that the Confederated Tribes
of the Warm Springs of Oregon continue to have concerns about this
legislation. Many of these lands are significant to local tribes and we
encourage the sponsor and the Committee to continue to work toward
resolving these issues.
The bill requires that the exchanges be consistent with FLPMA,
including the requirement that the Secretary determine that the public
interest would be served by completing the exchange (section 2(b)(2)).
We believe that this provides the BLM latitude to withdraw specific
lands from the exchange if any serious impediments are discovered.
Furthermore, the legislation provides that the Secretary may add such
additional terms and conditions as appropriate (section 2(b)(3)(E)). We
believe this would allow the BLM to require that all non-Federal
parties are responsible for addressing any human safety concerns or the
remediation of hazardous materials on the lands to be exchanged out of
present ownership. Finally, the BLM supports the provisions of the bill
requiring that all three exchanges be equal value exchanges, and that
the appraisals be undertaken consistent with Uniform Appraisal
Standards.
The bill (section 2(c)) also proposes to designate two potential
wilderness areas, the ``Proposed Cathedral Rock Wilderness'' and the
``Proposed Horse Heaven Wilderness'' on the lands that would be
consolidated under the land exchanges envisioned by section 2(b) of the
bill. When those land exchanges are completed, the Cathedral Rock
Wilderness would include over 8,300 acres of public land and the Horse
Heaven Wilderness 9,000 acres. The legislation provides a process in
section 2(c)(2) for converting the ``proposed'' wilderness areas into
designated wilderness following adequate acquisitions of the now
private lands. The BLM could manage these areas as wilderness following
the exchanges. However, absent the largest exchange envisioned under
section 2 of S. 353, these areas would be impracticable for the BLM to
manage as wilderness. That proposed exchange with the local landowner,
``Young Life,'' involves the core of both the proposed Cathedral Rock
and Horse Heaven wilderness areas.
The current land patterns of both the ``Proposed Cathedral Rock
Wilderness'' and ``Proposed Horse Heaven Wilderness'' are highly
fragmented. The BLM manages approximately 4,500 acres in seven, non-
contiguous parcels within the Cathedral Rock area and less than 3,000
acres in two separate parcels within Horse Heaven. The land exchanges
are, of course, optional for the three private parties. If, in the end,
the largest private land owner decides not to pursue the exchange,
managing the areas as wilderness would not be practical given the
fragmented nature of the BLM landholdings in these two areas. The BLM
supports the provisions for interim management of the ``proposed''
areas and the methodology for final designation if sufficient land
exchanges are consummated. Additionally, the BLM supports the
provisions in section 2(c)(4) of the bill providing for a termination
of the wilderness designation authority 10 years after the date of
enactment of the Act. This provides a reasonable timeframe during which
to either consummate the land exchanges and designate the wilderness
areas or return to current management of the area.
Finally, section 2(b)(7) would transfer the administrative
jurisdiction of approximately 750 acres of BLM-managed lands to the
Forest Service. The BLM supports this transfer of lands which will
improve manageability.
Wild Rogue Wilderness
Background
The Rogue River's headwaters begin near Crater Lake. It then rushes
215 miles through the mountains and valleys of southwestern Oregon,
eventually emptying into the Pacific Ocean near the town of Gold Beach.
Over millions of years, the Rogue has patiently carved its way through
western Oregon's mountains creating 3,000 foot canyons, rugged valleys
and inspiring scenery. Dense, old-growth forests flank the Rogue
providing habitat for older, forest-dependent species, including the
Northern Spotted Owl and the Marbled Murrelet. The cold, clear waters
of the river provide a home for Pacific salmon, steelhead trout, and
green sturgeon.
Recreationists are drawn to the entire Rogue River watershed to
experience nature in a multitude of ways. These recreationists are a
critical economic engine for local economies and include commercial and
sport fishing, rafting and jet boat tours, and hiking and backpacking.
The untamed landscape offers countless opportunities for challenge,
exploration, and discovery.
The 36,000-acre Wild Rogue Wilderness was designated by an Act of
Congress (Public Law 95-237) in 1978. Located primarily on lands
managed by the U.S. Forest Service, the Wild Rogue includes
approximately 8,600 acres of lands administered by the BLM. In 1968,
Congress passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law 90-542),
establishing the Wild and Scenic River System and designating eight
original rivers. As one of these initial eight rivers, Oregon's Rogue
River has long been recognized for its beauty, exceptional recreational
opportunities, and extraordinary resource values.
S. 353, Section 3
The bill (section 3) proposes to enlarge the existing Wild Rogue
Wilderness by adding nearly 60,000 acres of land administered by the
BLM. This section also extends the existing Rogue Wild and Scenic River
by adding 93 miles of 35 tributaries of the Rogue to the wild and
scenic river system. In addition, the bill withdraws 50 miles of 20
other Rogue River tributaries from operation of the land laws, mining
laws, and mineral leasing laws and prohibits the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) from licensing new water resource projects
and associated facilities along these tributaries.
The BLM supports the expansion of the Wild Rogue Wilderness. This
wild and rugged area is largely untrammeled. It has largely retained
its primeval character and has been influenced primarily by the forces
of nature with outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation or
solitude. Protection of these wilderness characteristics is largely
consistent with the current management framework for these lands. We
would like the opportunity to work with the bill Sponsor and the
Committee on some modifications to the map and the legislation. The BLM
recommends that the legislation include language directing the
Secretary of the Interior to manage the BLM portion of the current Wild
Rogue Wilderness. When the Wild Rogue Wilderness was established in
1978, the legislation called for the Secretary of Agriculture to manage
all of the lands within the wilderness boundary. With this expansion,
we would like to correct that previous oversight and ensure that both
the original and the additional BLM-managed lands within the Wild Rogue
are managed by the BLM. Management of this area will continue to be a
cooperative exercise with the U. S. Forest Service and involve many of
the same staff that jointly manage the Rogue's successful river
program.
The bill excludes over 500 acres of BLM-managed lands on the north
side of the river within the external boundaries of the wilderness
addition from designation as wilderness by cherry-stemming a road
network where logging and other activities have occurred. This could
leave these lands open to future development and potentially complicate
management of the surrounding lands as wilderness. While these lands
show visible effects of past logging activities and existing primitive
roads that do not meet the naturalness criteria of the Wilderness
Act,the BLM would like to discuss the possibility of designating them
as ``potential wilderness'' (as was done, for example, to California's
Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness Area through the Northern California
Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act--Public Law 109-362). The BLM
would consider management of the area in order to actively restore or,
where more appropriate, passively restore these lands to move them
toward wilderness conditions that are consistent with future Wilderness
designation.
The BLM would also like to work with the Oregon delegation on
boundary modifications of the wilderness expansion to improve
manageability. There are portions of the proposed wilderness where
minor modifications to follow a road would allow for a more
recognizable and manageable boundary. In addition, a few areas
identified for wilderness designation on the southeast side of the
proposed expansion may raise manageability concerns. Specifically, the
inclusion of areas south of Bailey Creek and east of the Rogue appears
to present conflicts with existing mining activity and other uses. The
BLM would like the opportunity to discuss these conflicts further with
the Committee and the bill's sponsor.
In 1968, when Congress established the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, it designated the Rogue as one of the original eight
rivers included in this system. Section 3(c)(1) further enhances that
initial designation by adding 35 specific tributaries of the Rogue to
the national system, thus conserving the greater Rogue River watershed.
In general, the proposed stream segments are located in steep, sloped
canyons with mature and structurally complex forest stands that have
high conservation values. We support maintaining and enhancing those
conservation values through designating the 35 tributaries as Wild and
Scenic.
Finally, Section 3(d) of S. 353 prohibits FERC from licensing the
construction of any new water or power projects along 50 miles of 20
Rogue River tributaries. Additionally, the bill would withdraw land for
one-quarter mile along either side of these tributaries from operation
of the land laws, mining laws, and mineral leasing laws. This
withdrawal will protect valid existing rights but would prohibit the
sale or exchange of any of these federal lands, the location of new
mining claims, new mineral or geothermal leases, and sales of mineral
materials. These withdrawals will provide additional protections to
this important watershed, and the Department supports these provisions.
Molalla Wild & Scenic River
Background
The Molalla River begins its journey to the sea on the western
slopes of the Cascade Mountains of Oregon. At an elevation of 4,800
feet, the Molalla flows undammed for 49 miles west and north until it
joins the Willamette River. For years, the Molalla suffered from too
much negative attention from its visitors, including vandalism. To
address these problems, local residents joined together several years
ago and formed the Molalla River Alliance (MRA). The MRA, a nonprofit
all volunteer organization, has over 45 public and private partners,
including Federal, State, and local government agencies; user groups;
and conservationists. Working cooperatively with BLM's local field
office, the MRA has provided the Molalla the care it needed. Today, we
are pleased that this subcommittee is considering designating
approximately 21 miles of the river as a component of the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System.
The Molalla River is home to important natural and cultural
resources. Protection of this watershed is crucial as the source of
drinking water for local communities and the important spawning habitat
it provides for several fish species, including salmon and steelhead.
Within an hour's drive of the metropolitan areas of Portland and Salem,
Oregon, the Molalla watershed provides significant recreational
opportunities for fishing, canoeing, mountain biking, horseback riding,
hiking, hunting, camping, and swimming and draws over 65,000 visitors
annually.
S. 353, Section 4
The bill (section 4) proposes to designate 15.1 miles of the
Molalla River and 6.2 miles of the Table Rock Fork of the Molalla as
components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The
Department supports these designations. In earlier planning analyses,
the BLM evaluated the Molalla River and the Table Rock Fork of the
Molalla River and determined that most of these two rivers should be
considered for designation as wild and scenic rivers. As a result, the
designation called for would be largely consistent with management
currently in place and would cause few changes to BLM's current
administration of most of this area. The 5,700-acre Table Rock
Wilderness, designated by Congress in 1984, is embraced by the Molalla
and Table Rock Fork, and designation of these river segments would
reinforce the protections in place for the wilderness area.
Wild and scenic rivers are designated by Congress in one of three
categories: wild, scenic, or recreational. Differing management
proscriptions apply for each of these designations. This bill specifies
that these river segments be classified as recreational. This
classification is consistent with the strong recreational values of
this area as well as the presence of roads along the course of the
river segments and numerous dispersed campsites along its shorelines.
Finally, section 5 of S. 353 applies to National Forest System
lands and we defer to the Forest Service on those provisions.
Conclusion
The conservation designations included in Senator Wyden's Oregon
Treasures Act, S. 353, are surely that-National treasures. The
Administration supports this legislation and looks forward to the
conservation and protection of these very special places.
ON S. 757
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on S. 757, which amends the Mesquite Lands
Act of 1986 in order to renew and extend certain authorizations which
had expired in late 2011. The BLM supports the goals of S. 757 to
provide for the economic development needs of Mesquite, Nevada, and for
the implementation of habitat conservation plans in Clark County and in
Lincoln County, Nevada. The BLM notes that existing authorities, such
as sales under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA), allow
BLM to achieve similar purposes through the development of Resource
Management Plans and include opportunities for public comment.
Background
The Mesquite Lands Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-548) afforded the City of
Mesquite in eastern Clark County, Nevada, the exclusive right to
purchase certain parcels of public land, at fair market value, for a
period of years. In a series of amendments over the last 17 years, the
Mesquite Lands Act was amended to add additional parcels, authorize
funding to develop a habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River,
and to direct a conveyance to the City. The authorizations under the
Mesquite Lands Act expired in late 2011. The Lincoln County Land Act of
2000 (P.L. 106-298) similarly authorized the use of certain funds for
development of a habitat conservation plan in Lincoln County. While the
City of Mesquite acquired approximately 7,700 acres of public lands
under the Mesquite Lands Act, as amended, it was not able to complete
all of the acquisitions it sought in the prescribed time period.
S. 757
S. 757 extends certain authorizations in the Mesquite Lands Act, as
amended, for an additional ten years to November 29, 2021. The bill
also allows for the use of certain funds for the implementation (in
addition to the development) of habitat conservation plans for the
Virgin River in Clark County as well as for a habitat conservation plan
in Lincoln County. It also extends the withdrawal of the lands from all
forms of location, entry and appropriation under the public land laws,
including mining laws, and from operation of mineral leasing and
geothermal leasing laws, subject to valid existing rights.
The BLM supports S. 757 and its goal of providing for the long-term
economic development needs of the City. It would allow more time to
complete the environmental reviews (and to develop possible mitigation
of impacts) of proposed land uses on the parcels. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service has been working cooperatively with the BLM in the
development of the habitat conservation plan for the Virgin River. The
additional authorizations in S. 757 to implement habitat conservation
plans will enhance the Department's habitat protection efforts in Clark
County and in Lincoln County, Nevada.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on S. 757.
ON S. 609
Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on
S. 609, the San Juan Federal Land Conveyance Act. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) supports S. 609, which provides for the sale of
approximately 19 acres of public land in northern San Juan County, New
Mexico to a private party at fair market value. We support this
legislation, but would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor
and the committee on a few modifications to S. 609.
Background
In 1998, the BLM settled a lawsuit regarding protection of the
southwestern willow flycatcher in New Mexico. In order to protect
potential flycatcher habitat, the BLM agreed to exclude livestock
grazing from riparian areas in New Mexico by fencing BLM-managed river
tracts identified as having suitable flycatcher habitat. While
surveying lands for fencing under the settlement agreement, the BLM
discovered as many as 20 different cases of trespass on BLM-
administered public lands in New Mexico.
These trespass cases included a 14-acre trespass into the Bald
Eagle Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) north of Aztec,
N.M. In 1999, the Blancett family, who were actively farming these
acres, was cited for trespass on approximately 19 acres of public
lands. Despite resolution of many of the identified trespass cases-
including cases with the Blancetts' neighbors to the north and south-
BLM negotiation efforts with the Blancetts were unsuccessful.
Following failed negotiations and an IBLA mediation attempt, the
Blancetts sued the Department of the Interior in U.S. District Court in
2010. On February 27, 2012, a settlement was reached between the
Blancetts and the Department of the Interior, and the case was
dismissed with prejudice. Under that settlement agreement, the
Blancetts have two years to obtain a legislative solution to address
the trespass situation. If a legislative solution is not obtained by
March 5, 2014, or substantial progress toward that solution is not made
by that time, the BLM will offer to sell the approximately two-acre
parcel with the family residence to the Blancetts and the BLM may
immediately begin to fence and reclaim the remaining 17 acres for bald
eagle habitat, which will remain in Federal ownership.
S. 609
S. 609 provides for the direct sale of approximately 19 acres of
BLM-managed public land in San Juan County, New Mexico, to the
Blancetts pursuant to a 2012 settlement agreement. The bill requires
the Secretary of the Interior to sell at fair market value
approximately 19-acres of public land to the Blancetts upon their
request, as outlined in the settlement.
Under the bill, fair market value is to be determined by an
appraisal conducted using the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal
Land Acquisitions and other standard provisions. Additionally, the bill
requires the Blancetts to pay administrative costs associated with the
sale, including the cost of the survey and appraisal. The BLM supports
these provisions.
The bill requires the transfer to the Blancetts of all right,
title, and interest of the Federal government of these public lands. As
written, this would include the subsurface mineral estate. The BLM
notes that there are two producing oil wells on Federal land adjacent
to the lands proposed for conveyance, and the Federal mineral lease
associated with these wells includes the lands proposed for transfer.
In order to address the existing lease and producing wells, the BLM
recommends that the Federal government retain ownership of the mineral
estate, and that the legislation provide for a withdrawal of the
mineral estate from the mining laws and mineral leasing laws.
Furthermore, we recommend that both the conveyance and the withdrawal
be subject to valid existing rights.
Under the bill, all proceeds from the sale are to be deposited into
a special account in the Treasury for use in the acquisition of land or
interests in land to further the protective purposes of the Bald Eagle
ACEC or for resource protection consistent with the purposes of the
ACEC. Because these funds are derived from the sale of lands, the BLM
believes these funds should be used solely to acquire other lands or
interest in lands.
The BLM supports this bill as it represents an opportunity to
resolve a longstanding trespass issue and facilitates a reasonable and
practicable conveyance of the lands to the Blancetts that is consistent
with the 2012 settlement agreement.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify in support of the
San Juan Federal Land Conveyance Act.
ON S. 159
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on S. 159, the Lyon
County Economic Development and Conservation Act, which presents
economic development opportunities for the western Nevada city of
Yerington. This bill would allow the city to purchase, at fair market
value, over 10,000 acres of surface land and the subsurface mineral
estate managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that surround a
copper mine development located on approximately 1,500 acres of private
land. The BLM has a few concerns with the legislation and proposes some
modifications and amendments, including provisions related to timing of
the conveyance that would ensure that the Federal government receives
full value for the lands and associated mineral interests. In addition,
Sections 3 and 4 of S. 159 designate an addition to the National
Wilderness Preservation System-the Wovoka Wilderness Area-on National
Forest System lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Department
of the Interior defers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture on
provisions that apply to lands and programs under its management.
Background
Yerington is a small community located southeast of Carson City in
Lyon County, Nevada. The BLM manages approximately 570,000 acres of
public land in the county. Historically, mining and agriculture have
been significant contributors to the local economy, but today,
Yerington has an unemployment rate that is higher than the national
average.
In February 2012, Nevada Copper Corp. broke ground on an
exploratory operation at its Pumpkin Hollow mine site on private lands
that are at the center of the proposed conveyance area. The city plans
to annex the mine as well as the conveyance area, which will increase
the tax base of both the city and Lyon County. Nevada Copper will fund
the land acquisition costs for the city as well as land surveys,
appraisals and cultural and natural resource evaluations required for
the conveyance. In return, the city will either lease or sell certain
lands that Nevada Copper requires for the development of its mine
complex. Nevada Copper will also work with the city to extend water and
sewer services beyond those needed for the Pumpkin Hollow mine. The
city's plans envision an area where transportation, power, and water
infrastructure installed for the mine will benefit other industrial and
commercial users and facilitate the development of cultural and
recreational areas for the benefit of Yerington.
S. 159
S. 159 (Section 2) requires the Secretary of the Interior to convey
to the city of Yerington for fair market value over 10,000 acres of
BLM-managed land and the underlying mineral estate-if the city agrees
to the conveyance. Under the bill, the Secretary would establish the
value of the land and the mineral estate in accordance with the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act and uniform appraisal standards. The
city will pay the fair market value for the property and all costs
related to the conveyance, including surveys, appraisals, and other
administrative expenses.
The bill's 180-day time period for conveyance does not allow
sufficient time to complete reviews and consultation with parties under
the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic
Preservation Act or conduct appraisals to establish the fair market
value of the surface and mineral estates. To its credit, the city has
moved ahead and already sought and been granted permission to perform
cultural survey work on the area. The preliminary findings of this
survey indicate that there are sites in the conveyance area that may be
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Properties.
Resolution of adverse effects, or an agreement for the resolution or
preservation, should be addressed before the sites pass from Federal
ownership. The BLM recommends a one-year time period to complete all
the necessary work associated with the conveyance.
The area's longstanding relationship to mining poses two other
challenges not taken into account in the bill. Although originally
there were a number of mining claims held by parties other than Nevada
Copper, the BLM understands Nevada Copper has purchased many of these
mining claims. According to the BLM's mining claim database, there are
11 other outstanding mining claims. We understand that Nevada Copper is
making arrangements that may resolve this issue. The BLM generally does
not convey lands with mining claims. If left unresolved, S. 159 leaves
open the question of who would administer these other mining claims,
which by default leaves the responsibility to the BLM to conduct
validity exams and resolve other issues such as site remediation.
According to the city, one of the stated goals of this bill is to
``expedite near term and long term development of mining facilities.''
If the BLM manages these claims but not the surrounding surface rights,
conflicts may occur that would hobble this goal of expedited
development.
The area's mining legacy poses a second and potentially dangerous
situation. The Nevada Division of Minerals has identified abandoned
mine features on the public lands to be conveyed to the city, a few of
which may present potential hazards to the public. We would like to
work with the proponents of this bill to resolve this issue. For
example, the United States government should be indemnified from any
future liabilities arising from any hazardous features . . . . In
addition, there are a few technical changes the BLM suggests for the
bill on matters such as the conveyance parcel boundary.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on S. 159. This
legislation is important to the people of this area, and the BLM looks
forward to working with the sponsor and the committee.
ON S. 256
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Department of the
Interior is pleased to provide this statement for the record in support
of enactment of legislation that would convey the three geographical
miles of submerged lands adjacent to the Northern Mariana Islands to
the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Administration
would strongly support this bill if amended to address the issues
outlined below.
The bill is intended to give the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) authority over its submerged lands from mean
high tide seaward to three geographical miles distant from its coast
lines.
It has been the position of the Federal Government that United
States submerged lands around the Northern Mariana Islands did not
transfer to the CNMI when the Covenant came into force. This position
was validated in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the case of
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. the United States
of America. One consequence of this decision is that CNMI law
enforcement personnel lack jurisdiction in the territorial waters
surrounding the islands of the CNMI without a grant from the Federal
Government.
At present, the CNMI is the only United States territory that does
not have title to the submerged lands in that portion of the United
States territorial sea that is three miles distant from the coastline.
It is appropriate that the CNMI be given the same authority as her
sister territories.
Second, on January 6, 2009, by presidential proclamation, the
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument was created, including the
Islands Unit, comprising the submerged lands and waters surrounding
Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion, the northernmost islands of the CNMI. While
creation of the monument is a historic achievement, it should be
remembered that the leaders and people of the CNMI were and are these
three islands' first preservationists. They included in their 1978,
plebiscite-approved constitution the following language:
ARTICLE XIV--NATURAL RESOURCES
Section 1--Marine Resources. The marine resources in the
waters off the coast of the Commonwealth over which the
Commonwealth now or hereafter may have any jurisdiction under
United States law shall be managed, controlled, protected and
preserved by the legislature for the benefit of the people.
Section 2--Uninhabited Islands. . . . The islands of Maug,
Uracas, Asuncion, Guguan and other islands specified by law
shall be maintained as uninhabited places and used only for the
preservation and protection of natural resources, including but
not limited to bird, wildlife and plant species.
It is important to note that the legislature has never taken action
adverse to the preservation of these northern islands and the waters
surrounding them. The people of the CNMI are well aware of their
treasures. CNMI leaders consented to creation of the monument because
they believed that the monument would bring Federal assets for marine
surveillance, protection, and enforcement to the northern islands that
the CNMI cannot afford.
If enacted as introduced, S. 256 would become a public law enacted
subsequent to the creation of the monument. S. 256's amendments to the
Territorial Submerged Lands Act would convey to the CNMI the submerged
lands surrounding Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion without addressing the
effect of this conveyance on the administrative responsibilities of the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce. Presidential
Proclamation 8335 assigned management responsibility of the Marianas
Trench Marine National Monument to the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. The proclamation further
states that the ``Secretary of Commerce shall have the primary
management responsibility . . . with respect to fishery-related
activities regulated pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1801 et seq.) and
any other applicable authorities.'' The proclamation provides that
submerged lands that are granted to the CNMI ``but remain controlled by
the United States under the Antiquities Act may remain part of the
monument'' for coordinated management with the CNMI. As envisioned by
the Presidential Proclamation establishing the Marianas Trench Marine
National Monument, the Administration is proposing an amendment to
ensure that the outstanding resources in the waters surrounding the
CNMI's three northernmost islands remain protected. Thus, the
Administration recommends that language be included in S. 256
referencing the coordination of management contemplated within the
Proclamation prior to the transfer of the submerged lands within the
Islands Unit of the monument to the CNMI. This language is intended to
protect the Islands Unit of the monument and at the same time
acknowledge the prescient and historic conservation effort of the
leaders and people of the CNMI in protecting Uracas, Maug, and
Asuncion, and their surrounding waters.
The Administration recommends that S. 256 include an amendment to
subsection (b) of section 1 of the Territorial Submerged Lands Act,
Public Law 93-435, 48 U.S.C. 1705, as follows:
(xii) any submerged lands within the Islands Unit of the
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument unless or until such
time as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands enters
into an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Commerce for the permanent protection and co-
management of such portion of the Islands Unit.
The Department of the Interior strongly supports S. 256 if it is
amended to include the legislative language provided. The Department of
the Interior looks forward to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands gaining rights in surrounding submerged lands similar to those
accorded her sister territories.
ON S. 360
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 360, a bill to amend the Public
Lands Corps Act of 1993 to expand the authorization of the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Commerce and the Interior to provide service
opportunities for young Americans; help restore the nation's natural,
cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational and scenic resources;
train a new generation of public land managers and enthusiasts; and
promote the values of public service.
The Administration strongly supports S. 360 which promotes
environmental stewardship while providing job skill development to
succeed in the 21st century workforce. This bill would strengthen and
facilitate the use of the Public Land Corps (PLC) program, helping to
fulfill the Administration's commitment to build a 21st Century
Conservation Service Corps (21 CSC)-a national collaborative effort
encouraging young people across America to serve their community and
their country. During the last two Congresses, the Department testified
in support of similar bills. While we appreciate many of the revisions
since the 111th Congress' version that are reflected in S. 360, we
would like to have the opportunity to work with the committee on the
amendments described in this statement and any additional issues that
we identify as we continue our review of the bill.
Engaging America's Youth Through Service
While there are other federal programs that promote service,
expanding the use of the Public Land Corps is particularly important
because it also serves other high-priority goals. Specifically,
enactment of this legislation will help pave the way to meeting one of
the goals of the President's America's Great Outdoors initiative--to
develop a 21st Century Conservation Service Corps. In January 2013,
leaders of eight federal departments and agencies signed an agreement
setting up a national council to guide implementation of the
Administration's 21CSC--a national collaborative effort to put
America's youth and returning veterans to work protecting, restoring
and enhancing America's great outdoors. By signing the Memorandum of
Understanding, the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce,
and Labor, as well as the EPA Administrator, Chair of the President's
Council on Environmental Quality, CEO of the Corporation for National
and Community Service and Assistant Secretary for the Army (Civil
Works) established the National Council for the 21CSC-fully
implementing the first recommendation of the America's Great Outdoors
Initiative introduced by President Obama in 2010. The National Council
works across the federal government to support the 21CSC by enhancing
partnerships with existing youth corps programs that utilize PLC around
the nation; stimulating existing and new public-private partnerships;
and aligning the investment of current federal government resources.
Building on the legacy of President Roosevelt's Civilian
Conservation Corps during the Great Depression in the 1930s, the 21CSC
will help build and train a workforce that fully represents the
diversity of America while creating the next generation of
environmental stewards and improving the condition of our public lands.
The 21CSC focuses on helping young people--including diverse, low-
income, underserved and at-risk youth, as well as returning veterans--
gain valuable training and work experience while accomplishing needed
conservation and restoration work on public lands, waterways and
cultural heritage sites.
S. 360 would help both the Department and our sister agencies, USDA
and the Department of Commerce, offer expanded opportunities for our
youth to engage in the care of America's Great Outdoors, consistent
with efforts to fully implement the 21CSC. Additionally, the PLC
program helps the Department implement critical cost-effective
conservation projects that have direct positive impacts for the agency
and the public. This legislation will also help the Department fully
implement the 5-Year Plan for Pathways in Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math (STEM).
Background on Public Land Corps Program
The Department regards the Public Land Corps program as an
important and successful example of civic engagement and conservation.
Authorized by the National and Community Service Trust Act in 1993, the
program uses non-profit organizations such as the Student Conservation
Association (SCA) and other service and conservation corps
organizations affiliated with the Corps Network as the primary partners
in administering the Public Land Corps program. These public/private
partnership efforts help to leverage Federal dollars in some cases 3 to
1. In addition, other non-profit youth organizations such as the YMCA
also participate, as do local high schools and job-training youth
organizations. The youth organizations assist the National Park Service
(NPS) in its efforts to attract diverse participants to the parks by
recruiting youth 16-25 years of age from all socioeconomic, cultural
and ethnic backgrounds.
The National Park Service makes extensive use of the Public Land
Corps Act. This authority is used for the majority of all NPS youth
work projects that utilize a non-profit youth-serving organization as a
partner. In FY 2012, 1,699 employment opportunities were created
through the projects undertaken by these partner organizations. Many of
these projects were for maintenance and ecological restoration
purposes. The NPS receives a 25 percent cost match from the
participating partner organizations. During FY 2012, the NPS spent
approximately $14 million on youth conservation projects that engaged
qualified non-profit youth serving organizations. Funding for these
projects included Service-wide fee revenue, Youth Partnership Program,
Cyclic Maintenance, Repair/Rehab, and park-based funds. The NPS has
developed a Cyclic Maintenance/Repair Rehab Youth Initiative that is
designed to increase the number of maintenance projects that are
performed by youth partner organizations. Once this initiative is fully
implemented in 2014, NPS expects to dramatically increase the number of
employment opportunities for youth. Parks have been instructed to
identify maintenance projects could be set aside for PLC youth partner
organizations. Parks were also asked to identify historic
rehabilitation projects that could be performed by youth partner
organizations. A special task force comprised of senior NPS facility
managers has been formed to implement this initiative.
In 2011, the NPS and the Student Conservation Association began an
innovative PLC partnership to introduce college students of color to
professional opportunities in the NPS. This year, 72 students
participated in week-long orientation sessions at the Grand Tetons
National Park and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and in
Alaska. These sessions offered a behind the scenes experience of how
national park units are managed through seminars, workshops and other
hands on activities that focused on the importance of culture,
diversity and resource stewardship. They were introduced to the myriad
of career opportunities in the NPS that include facilities management,
fire and rescue, administration, resource management and visitor
education. Those successfully completing their orientation are given
the opportunity to serve in a 12-week paid summer internship at a
national park site. The interns are provided a NPS mentor who gives
advice, guidance and information regarding employment opportunities in
the NPS.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) also have a long history of employing young people
through the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) and through the Student
Conservation Association (SCA) and other youth service and conservation
organizations for a wide array of projects related to public lands
resource enhancement and facility maintenance under the Public Lands
Corps Act. Though most Corps are affiliated with the nationwide Corps
Network, they are often administered at the State, rather than national
level. The FWS and the SCA have partnered for over 20 years to offer
work and learning opportunities to students. In FY 2012, 278 SCA
interns and 476 other corps members served in 50 states and 3
territories to help the FWS achieve its resource management goals.
The BLM has engaged the services of non-profit youth service corps
for many years under financial assistance agreements at the state and
local level. In 2012, the BLM supported 2,100 youth employees through
non-profit youth service corps organizations. They participated in a
variety of conservation service activities such as recreation and river
management, historic building restoration and maintenance, inventory
and monitoring of cultural resources, wilderness, rangeland, and
renewable energy compliance; native seed collection and invasive
species control, and visitor services, including education and
interpretation.
In Arizona, as part of Project ROAM (Reclaim Our Arizona
Monuments), a crew from the Southwest Conservation Corps spent two
weeks rehabilitating and decommissioning up to 10 miles of illegal
smuggling roads in the Sonoran Desert National Monument.
In Harney County, Oregon, the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps,
which was established by the Oregon Legislature to increase
educational, training, and employment opportunities for youth, engaged
high school crews in such projects as improving trails, fences,
campgrounds, signs, and landscaping. The crews have also removed non-
native plants and weeds, cleaned up fire lookouts, and helped install
wildlife guzzlers.
The FWS manages 561 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System
that cover over 150 million acres of land and waters, as well as over
70 National Fish Hatcheries, which would directly benefit from programs
authorized under S. 360. National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish
Hatcheries enjoy strong relationships with the local communities, and
are involved in many community-based projects that help maintain
sustainable landscapes. The FWS's work is also supported by over 200
non-profit Friends organizations that assist in offering quality
education programs, mentoring, and work experience for youth.
In 2012, the FWS employed 1325 youth employees through 90 partners
that include local, State, and non-profit youth service corps. The FWS
also provided funding for a YCC program that hired 709 teenagers. The
FWS has working relationships with numerous colleges and universities
for students interested in pursuing careers in fish and wildlife
management.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013
S. 360 would make several administrative and programmatic changes
to the Public Land Corps Act. These changes would encourage broader
agency use of the program, make more varied opportunities available for
young men and women, and provide more support for participants during
and after their service. Appropriately, S. 360 would change the
program's name to Public Lands Service Corps, reflecting the emphasis
on ``service'' that is the hallmark of the program. President Obama is
committed to providing young people with greater opportunities and
incentives to serve their community and country. Through an enhanced
Public Lands Service Corps, we would be taking a critical first step
that direction.
Key changes that the legislation would make to existing law
include:
Adding the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, which administers national marine
sanctuaries and conservation programs geared toward engaging
youth in science, service and stewardship, as an agency
authorized to use the program;
Establishing an Indian Youth Corps so Indian Youth can
benefit from Corps programs based on Indian lands, carrying out
projects that their Tribes and communities determine to be
priorities;
Authorizing a departmental-level office at the Department of
the Interior to coordinate Corps activities within all the
participating bureaus;
Requiring each of the three relevant departments to
undertake or contract for a recruiting program for the Corps;
Requiring a training program for Corps members and
identifying specific components the training must include;
Identifying more specific types of projects that could be
conducted under this authority;
Allowing participants in other volunteer programs to
participate in PLC projects;
Allowing agencies to make arrangements with other federal,
State, or local agencies, or private organizations, to provide
temporary housing for Corps members;
Providing explicit authority for the establishment of
residential conservation centers;
Authorizing agencies to recruit experienced volunteers from
other programs to serve as mentors to Corps members;
Adding ``consulting intern'' as a new category of service
employment under the PLC program;
Allowing agencies to provide living allowances, as
established by the applicable Secretary, and to reimburse
travel expenses;
Allowing agencies to provide non-competitive hiring status
for Corps members for two years after completing service,
rather than only 120 days, if certain terms are met; and
Allowing agencies to provide job and education counseling,
referrals, and other appropriate services to Corps members who
have completed their service.
We believe that the Department's program would benefit from
enactment of this legislation. As noted above, most PLC projects are
designed to address maintenance and ecological restoration needs, and
those types of projects would continue to be done under S. 360.
However, this legislation specifies a broader range of potential
projects, making it likely that Corps members could become involved in
such varied activities as historical and cultural research, museum
curatorial work, oral history projects and programs, documentary
photography, public information and orientation services that promote
visitor safety, and activities that support the creation of public
works of art. Participants might assist employees in the delivery of
interpretive or educational programs and create interpretive products
such as website content, Junior Ranger program books, printed handouts,
and audiovisual programs.
PLC participants would also be able to work for a partner
organization where the work might involve sales, office work,
accounting, science, communication, education, and management, so long
as the work experience is directly related to the protection and
management of public lands. The NPS and the FWS have a large number of
partner organizations that would be potential sponsors of young people
interested in the type of work they might offer.
Another important change is the addition of ``consulting intern''
as a new category of service employment under the PLC program,
expanding on the use of mostly college-student ``resource assistants,''
provided for under existing law. The consulting interns would be
graduate students who would help agencies carry out management analysis
activities. NPS has successfully used business and public management
graduate student interns to write business plans for parks for several
years, and this addition would bring these interns under the PLC
umbrella.
The Public Lands Service Corps would also offer agencies the
ability to hire successful corps members non-competitively at the end
of their appointment, which would provide the agency with an influx of
knowledgeable and diverse employees as well as career opportunities for
those interested in the agencies' mission. Such hiring authority is an
especially valuable tool for the Department to realize its goals
spelled out in the ``STEM Education and Employment Pathways Strategic
Plan.'' Refuges and hatcheries, for example, are uniquely qualified to
connect with local communities since the Service has so many refuges
across the country that are located near smaller communities and can
directly engage urban, inner city, and rural youth. For example,
partnering academic institutions are beginning to offer academic
certificate programs to enhance the students' work experience and
marketability for securing full-time employment in both the federal and
non-profit sectors, thereby providing orientation and exposure to a
broad range of career options.
An expanded Public Lands Service Corps program would provide more
opportunities for thousands of young Americans to participate in public
service while assisting the Department to address the critical
maintenance, restoration, repair and rehabilitation needs on our public
lands and gain a better understanding of the impacts of climate change
on these treasured landscapes.
Recommended Changes to S. 360
As noted at the start of this statement, we appreciate the changes
that have been made since the legislation was first introduced in the
111th Congress, and are reflected in S. 360. However, the
Administration recommends the following amendments to this bill:
1) Hiring preference
The Administration recommends changing eligibility for former PLSC
participants for non-competitive hiring status from two years to one
year. This change would make eligibility status consistent with other
Government-wide, non-competitive appointment authorities based on
service outside of the federal government.
2) Cost sharing for nonprofit organizations contributing to
expenses of resource assistants and consulting interns
Under current law in the case of resource assistants, and under S.
360 in the case of consulting interns, sponsoring organizations are
required to cost-share 25 percent of the expenses of providing and
supporting these individuals from ``private sources of funding.'' The
Administration recommends giving agencies the ability to reduce the
non-federal contribution to no less than 10 percent, only if the
Secretary determines it is necessary to enable a greater range of
organizations, such as smaller, community-based organizations that draw
from low-income and rural populations, to participate in the PLSC
program. This would make the cost-share provisions for resource
assistants and consulting interns parallel to the provisions under the
bill for other PLSC participants.
3) Definition of Eligible Public Lands
The Administration recommends technical amendments to clarify the
definition of ``Eligible service lands'' to include non-federal lands.
An expanded definition of eligible service lands to include federal,
state, local and privately-owned lands would provide additional
flexibility in carrying out conservation projects on non-federal lands
with willing landowners.
4) Agreements with Partners on Training and Employing Corps
Members
The Administration recommends striking the provision in S. 360 that
would allow PLSC members to receive federally funded stipends and other
PLSC benefits while working directly for non-federal third parties. The
need for this language is unclear, since agencies already have
flexibility in how they coordinate work with cooperating associations,
educational institutes, friends groups, or similar nonprofit
partnership organizations. Yet, the language could raise unanticipated
concerns over accountability, liability, and conflicts of interest. For
example, this language could allow an individual to receive a federally
funded stipend under a PLSC agreement, and then perform work for a
different non-federal group (such as a cooperating association) that is
subject to agency oversight under different agreements. This language
could blur the lines of responsibility that have been established in
response to IG concerns over the management of cooperating associations
and friends groups.
5) Participants/Terms
The Administration recommends striking the provision in S. 360 that
would limit the terms of service of Corps participants. This would
retain the authority provided for in current law which provides for
administrative flexibility in determining the appropriate length of
service for Corps participants.
6) Authorization of Appropriations
The Administration recommends amending S. 360 to eliminate the $12
million authorization ceiling for the program under existing law. This
would allow for an increased funding for the program in the future, as
the three Departments increase their use of the Public Lands Service
Corps.
The Department and its bureaus, along with its sister agencies are
presently working together to: establish a 21CSC; improve federal
capacity for recruiting, training and managing volunteers and volunteer
programs to create a new generation of citizen stewards; and improve
career pathways and to review barriers to jobs in natural resource
conservation and historic and cultural preservation. The proposed
amendments to the Public Lands Service Corps Act will support these
efforts to fully implement the President's America's Great Outdoors
initiative.
Finally, the Department of Labor also is reviewing S. 360 to ensure
child labor protections apply for participating youth, and will address
any concerns it has directly with the Subcommittee.
Senator Manchin. Thank you so much.
With that we'll open up to the committee, to the Senators,
to see if they have any questions.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pena, first on the Grazing Improvement Act. I really
appreciate your general support and positive testimony and just
ask if you'll commit to working with my staff to resolve the
outstanding issue with the use of categorical exclusion when
they shouldn't be used.
Mr. Pena. We would enjoy doing that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Now, I'll like to turn to you, Ms. Connell, on the same
topic about the grazing bill and your primary objections is
also the use of categorical exclusions to comply with NEPA.
You know, in 2007 the Bureau, the Bureau of Land
Management, actually established the categorical exclusion for
issuing grazing permits and leases that meet certain criteria
tied to land health. The categorical exclusion was established
following public comment and consultation with the Council on
Environmental Quality and the preparation of a full analysis by
your agency of grazing permit activities. The categorical
exclusion in my bill largely tracks the language in the BLM
established categorical exclusion. BLM used this categorical
exclusion up through 2009.
In 2009 BLM permanently suspended its use of the
categorical exclusion pursuant to a stipulated settlement
agreement with an environmental activist group called Western
Watersheds. This group actually received $43,000 of taxpayer
money for their attorney's fees related to this. So once again
this Administration, in my opinion, allowed an environmental
group to determine its decision making.
My question is does the BLM still stand behind the
categorical exclusion it established in the analysis and
rationale it used to support its establishment in 2007?
Ms. Connell. Thank you for your question. The BLM and the
Department of the Interior would in fact like to have a
categorical exclusion opportunity for our grazing permit
renewal process. We would just prefer that it be a
discretionary action as opposed to, what I understand to be,
mandatory as the way it's worded in the existing bill.
Senator Barrasso. So then I can ask--can I ask for your
commitment in working with my staff to address this issue of
NEPA compliance and the other specific language and concerns
that have been raised in your testimony?
Ms. Connell. We would look forward to working with you on
this bill.
Senator Barrasso. I'm very glad to see the BLM's testimony
on the Good Neighbor bill. The BLM recognized how replacing the
immediately adjacent requirement for State and Federal lands
within the same watershed could be beneficial in watershed
restoration projects and enhance the effectiveness of landscape
scale treatment. So I'm grateful for that.
Mr. Pena, with regarding that Good Neighbor Forestry Act
since 2009 both the Forest Service and the BLM have testified
in support of the Good Neighbor concept. But have suggested
that further study was necessary. I'm happy to see today that
further study of the issue is not raised in your testimony and
now only minor technical corrections remain.
So can you briefly outline for me maybe what those
technical corrections are and if you don't have a list, that's
OK. We can visit together about dealing with those.
Mr. Pena. Yes, Senator Barrasso. I'm glad that we're here
too. We don't need to do any more study, I think.
The main thing that we want to do is be able to, within the
Administration, reconcile how the labor laws would be
reconciled between State and Federal agencies. I think the
wording in the bill has come a long ways in being more clear
and help us reach a place where we can move forward together.
We'd be happy to work with your staff on those technical
issues.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, maybe in the interest of time I have a couple
other questions. I'll just submit those for written answers if
that's alright with you?
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Manchin. Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
I probably should have mentioned this while our colleagues
from Nevada were here. But as a testament to the local support
for the Lyon County bill even my own Aunt in Yerington called
me to ask me to support it. So they seem to be covering their
bases.
I want to talk a little bit about FLTFA and ask Ms. Connell
a question with that regard.
As you know in New Mexico we have a lot of places where,
like a lot of Western States, where State trust lands are
scattered through holdings of Federal lands. The BLM in New
Mexico spends quite a lot of time and energy trying to work on
exchanges and if it's a more appropriate question for you, Mr.
Rountree, feel free to jump in. But a lot of time and energy on
exchanges between the State and the Department of the Interior
to try and resolve that so that we're using our limited
management funds efficiently on both those landscapes, on the
State lands and on the Department of the Interior lands.
Can you talk a little bit about how FLTFA would help
resolve those State inholdings while maintaining the principle
of land for land that is important in exchanges?
Mr. Rountree. Yes, sir, I'd be happy to.
Exchanges aren't the most efficient way of conducting land
tenure adjustments.
There's usually two appraisals that are required.
There's all sorts of clearances that are required.
There's also trying to alleviate any discrepancies that
there might be on appraisals.
There may be some lands that we are interested or
uninterested in acquiring through exchange.
It is a valuable tool. It's not one of the most efficient.
One of the things we cannot do with the Land and Water
Conservation Fund is to acquire State lands. One of the
outstanding attributes of using FLTFA is our ability to do so.
There's simply not enough money under the Land and Water
Conservation Fund to buy lands from willing sellers across the
country. This is certainly a more efficient way of doing that
at the same time being able to acquire many of the inholdings
in areas like the Rio Grande del Norte.
Senator Heinrich. Great.
Mr. Chairman, I mentioned one other thing in regard to
that. You know, when I was on the House side I sat on the
Natural Resources Committee with a number of members from the
intermountain west. One of the things that I think attracted
people like Congressman Bishop and Congresswoman Lomas and
others to the FLTFA model that didn't necessarily, who weren't
necessarily fans of the Land and Water conservation fund in
some circumstances, is the idea of quality to over quantity and
being able to really focus the resources to places that were
productive for the public that produced a lot of wildlife
values, for example. That it actually facilitates a faster--
facilitates the Bureau of Land Management doing a quicker job
of disposing of lands that are no longer meet their
requirements for what they're looking for for their own
inholdings or holdings, I should say.
So I very much look forward to continuing to work with the
Department of the Interior to see this move forward. Sure
appreciate you holding this hearing today. One last thing, I
just want to thank the Department for their work with the local
community in Taos and Rio* Arriba Counties on the Rio Grande
del Norte designation.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pena, thank you for your comments on S. 736. This is
the Subsistence Cabin Fee bill. If I understand your statement
here today you do believe that the Forest Service has the
authority to address these fees and will be doing so
administratively. Is that a correct summation?
Mr. Pena. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Mr. Pena. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. I look forward to working with you to
resolve that and appreciate your efforts on that.
In turning to the Sealaska bill, S. 340, I appreciate your
recognition of the importance of this bill and the fact that
the Forest Service does support the principle objective as I
have outlined in my statement.
Ms. Connell, your statement as well that the BLM does
support the goal of Sealaska.
I think we recognize that 40 years is a long time to wait
for conveyances. I know that there were a lot of extenuating
circumstances in between. That has caused concern.
But the effort to get this resolved is an important one.
The work that has gone on now for well over 2 years, well over
2 years, you used the word diligent work, Mr. Pena, and I do
believe that that has been the case not only from those of you
within the agencies, our staffs, the members, again, working
with stakeholders and interest groups. It has been a long time
coming. I am hopeful that we are close to being able to resolve
this.
I appreciate your statements, Mr. Pena, that you believe
that this legislation would be in your words. ``Our full and
final satisfaction of the Sealaska claims and speak to the
issue of this being a unique situation for Sealaska as the last
of the Native Corporations to receive their full conveyances
under ANCSA.'' That in the Forest Service opinion this is
unique and that it is not precedent setting.
That has been an issue that has been raised back home. It
is an issue that has been raised by others. I think it is
important that we have worked diligently throughout this
process to ensure that it is not precedenting that it would not
allow for a reopener, if you will. So I think that's important
to put that out on the record here.
Ms., am I pronouncing it right? Is it Conell or Connell?
Ms. Connell. Actually either way. It depends on who you ask
in my family.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. I'm asking you today. So let's call it,
Conell.
Ms. Connell. That sounds good.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. Connell, I appreciate your
statement, again, a brief statement, but supporting, clearly,
the goals that we're trying to accomplish with this legislation
and the reference there that you defer to the Forest Service
and their statements. I appreciate that because I will admit
that when I read your testimony that we received late last
evening, I was concerned because there were two points that
were raised.
One as to the issue of precedent.
The other as it related to, kind of, the issue of
endangered species.
I just want to make sure that we're all in agreement in
terms of where BLM is coming from in terms of its support.
Again, I noted that over the course of these years we've
made some 175 changes. We have worked with the Department of
the Interior and USDA to meet their concerns. We've been
assured in the past that we had met those.
We did consult with BLM and used exactly the acreage
numbers that your folks gave us to settle on the final
entitlement. We worked with Forest Service, who, I'm told,
consulted with Fish and Wildlife to resolve the Endangered
Species Act concerns. We substantially modified those timber
conveyances so that Sealaska is now taking 4 times less acreage
that contains the old growth.
So when we're talking about the goshawk and the wolf
listing that we have addressed. Those concerns, that was
important. We did modify the language to specifically say that
this is full and final satisfaction of Sealaska's remaining
land entitlement.
Then also, to meet the Department's concern that somehow or
other this was going to be precedent setting, we went around
and contacted all of the Native Corporation's Heads, gained
assurance that they understood the very unique situation that
Sealaska faces. That they do not consider this bill as some
kind of a precedent and understand that the 2004 Alaska Land
Transfer Acceleration was a firm deadline for them.
So I just want to make sure then, Ms. Connell, that you,
when you say that you do defer to the Forest Service in terms
of their recommendation, that you would agree that Sealaska's
situation is unique. It will not be establishing a precedent
for reopening into the future for other Native Corporations.
Ms. Connell. I appreciate your concern with our late night
submittal of our testimony. certainly I can understand where
they can be some confusion created there.
First I would like to say that we very much appreciate all
the hard work that's been done on this bill over the years that
it's been worked on. The improvements have been vast. We
definitely appreciate that and do defer to the Forest Service.
It is my understanding that our comments are simply stating
that we can't give an absolute on some of the issues that were
brought up, an absolute that another corporation wouldn't come
in and ask for some type of similar treatment or an absolute
that it couldn't create an opening for a new determination or
consideration for the listing of a species. That was simply the
intent of our comment.
Senator Murkowski. It had appeared that it was language
that had been resurrected from the comments that we received
back in 2009 and 2011. Of course, that was ancient history in
terms of where we were then and where we are now.
So given, again, the very direct assurances contained in
the legislation that it is full and final satisfaction of
Sealaska's remaining land entitlements. What we have done to
really address, to the fullest extent possible, the issue of
making sure that we don't run into issues with endangered
species. I think it is important to recognize the extent that
all the parties went to to resolve these 2 areas.
So I hear your qualification there, but would you not agree
that we have worked aggressively to address these, not only
these two concerns in terms of precedent setting, but the
Endangered Species Act, but so many of the other concerns that
had been raised initially?
Ms. Connell. Yes, Senator. We would definitely agree that
you have made improvements in these areas. Working closely with
the Forest Service and on behalf of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, we appreciate the hard work and the significant
improvements that have been made in this bill.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, Mr. Pena, this relates
to the CMAI issue. You have noted that this is the outstanding
issue. We know that we've been going back and forth, but in
terms of a waiver for a limited amount of young growth that
would then accepted from CMAI.
You've indicated you want to work with us to resolve this
outstanding issue. I appreciate that. I also recognize though
that you're saying that this is going to be necessary to make
this whole transition to second growth work.
But I'm kind of looking at this and saying, this is only
about half true because the waiver doesn't really do anything
to keep the timber industry alive there in Southeast. What we
need down there is a steady supply. We need the long term old
growth supply commitment for the existing mill so that we can
keep them alive, essentially, until we're able to transition to
the young growth timber.
So the question to you would be, how does the CMAI
exemption actually make this transition, the Tongass transition
plan work?
Mr. Pena. I don't think the Tongass transition is just
predicated on the CMAI. I think where were coming from is
because of the number of more mature, second growth stands that
will be conveyed to Sealaska, that we had hoped would be able
to be part of our transition, beginning that transition earlier
than what we had planned. The few acres or the acres that we'd
be able to use the exemption on would reduce that gap where
we'd have to be relying on old growth timber for more of an
extended period of time.
It's my understanding that the transition is over time. So
right now the sales that we're putting up are predominately
going to be old growth type sales. They will be into the
future. The ability for us to make the transition and to lay
out a plan that where all parties can see that we will be
moving toward a second growth economy over time, I think is
part of the mix of being able to get the support for the near
term use of old growth looking at being able to speed up, as
quickly as we can, a transition.
It's my understanding that transition is over 15 to 20
years.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Pena. So that's, what we're hoping is, adequate time
for industry to make the shift toward second growth. I would
expect even when we're 15 to 20 years out, we're still going to
need to rely on some portion of old growth to maintain that
harvest level that's going to maintain a viable industry there.
That's what we're all committed to doing with both the Tongass
transition as well as looking at what would be needed for the
limited exemption for the CMAI. We've got to come up with a
different acronym.
Senator Murkowski. I know it's a tongue twister.
But this is what we've been trying to do is get some
commitment from the Forest Service that can be offered up to
the existing mills with respect to this old growth supply so
that they can make this transition. It's been difficult to get
that level of commitment. We had Chief Tidwell before the
committee here last week, I guess it was. It's been hard.
So, we understand what you're talking about within the
transition. I appreciate that you recognize that this is not
something that we could flip the switch on. It's a 20 year
deal.
So how, again, we keep this industry alive in the interim
is what I think we're all trying to work through. So I would
ask that you and your folks within Forest Service work with us
on this Sealaska bill to resolve this CMAI issue. Hopefully
allow us to move forward with the Sealaska Lands bill.
I gave the full title. The second half to this title is a
jobs protection act because we recognize that this will allow
for a small continuation of some of that industry, an industry
that is struggling in Southeastern Alaska. If this legislation
can't go through truly those timber jobs are no longer there to
make this transition to where Forest Service wants to go.
So I appreciate your offer to work with us on this. I think
we just have a little bit more to go, but I would hope that
between yourself, Ms. Connell at BLM, we can get this finally
resolved and end the 40 year transition that it's taken to get
Sealaska to this point.
So we need you to work with us. But I appreciate what you
have done to this point in time.
Mr. Chairman, I am well over my time. I have one more
question to ask on the Small Miners. Is that OK?
Senator Manchin. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski. Alright. Thank you for your indulgence.
This is back to you, Ms. Connell. This is regarding the
Small Miner bill.
I guess I'm just kind of struggling to try to figure out
what we do when we had initially introduced this bill there
were several different small miners that were in a similarly
situated situation. One of them has been addressed. Now we're
still trying to figure out how we address, what I think, is an
inequity or unevenness in the system. You've got a poor guy out
there. Now, it's a private relief bill because it's just one.
I still am trying to figure out why the BLM feels that the
language that says that miners should have the ability to cure
any defect for any reason doesn't apply to this primary, you
know, the defect in the first place which is not having the
application or the related work claim affidavits being recorded
and filed in a timely manner. So I'm still pushing on this
because I think that there is an issue within the system where
it failed. How we might be able to address it is what I am
still struggling with.
So I hear what you're saying about costly treatment if you
have to provide for this system wide notification. I would ask
that you all work with me, work with my staff, to try to
fashion what we would consider to be a fair solution for these
Alaska cases where we've got a small miner and just kind of
gets caught in the requirements that are out there.
I appreciate that we've got to have the requirements, but
it seems to me that we had a fatal flaw in the first place. We
haven't been able to get around that. I'd like to be able to
see if there isn't someway that we can address this matter and
bring this one to a conclusion as well.
Ms. Connell. We would be happy to continue working with you
on this matter.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that.
Again, to both of you, all of you within your respective
agencies, thank you for your efforts in helping us on the
Sealaska Lands Provision bill. It is a very important bill to
me. It's a very important bill to so many Alaskans.
As I mentioned this is not a perfect one where everybody is
walking away happy. But I think that it is recognized that good
faith effort was made by everyone from Sealaska, to the
communities, to the fishermen, to the sportsmen, to the
recreationists, to the folks in the agencies and I really
appreciate the efforts that have been made.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look forward to moving things out
from here.
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Senator.
If there are no further questions I'd like to thank all of
our witnesses today for their testimony this afternoon.
Some members of the committee may submit additional
questions in writing. If so, we may ask you to submit answers
for the record.
We will keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks to receive
any additional comments.
Senator Manchin. The committee is adjourned.
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Jamie Connell to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. According to your testimony and the Forest Service's,
on S. 255, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, there are 39
existing leases or claims in the North Fork comprising 56,117 acres and
18 existing leases or claims in the Middle Fork comprising 8,595 acres.
Please provide a map of the withdrawal area, as described in S. 255,
displaying the location of all the existing leases or claims.
Answer. In response to your request, a map has been provided to
your staff. Please note, the acreage of the 18 existing leases in the
Middle Fork should be corrected to 8,482 acres.
Question 2. Has the Department of the Interior inventoried the oil
and gas resources underlying the federal lands proposed for withdrawal
in S.255? If so, please provide the estimates of oil and gas. If not,
why not?
Answer. The Department has not completed an inventory or
exploratory assessment of the oil and gas resources in the North Fork
Watershed. However, the USGS National Oil and Gas Assessment (NOGA), a
geology-based assessment of oil and gas potential across the country,
has included this area. The assessment unit containing the North Fork
Watershed is known as the ``Montana Thrust Belt'' and covers the
Western third of Montana.
The 1995 USGS NOGA assessment stated of this area:
``[U]nlike the adjacent and contiguous Alberta Foothills
Belt to the north, the Montana Thrust Belt has failed to yield
appreciable hydrocarbons in spite of more than 80 years of
exploration and wildcat drilling.''
``Federal lands withdrawn from exploration [e.g., Glacier
National Park and National Forest Wilderness] are generally
west of the mountain front in areas analogous to those in
Alberta that have not yielded hydrocarbons.''
``Altogether fewer than 80 wildcat wells have resulted in
the discovery of three minor gas fields.''
The 2002 USGS NOGA assessment:
Provided more quantitative data, though all of it is
predicted based on geologic characteristics (the Department
does not conduct exploratory assessments as part of the NOGA)
Estimated 8.6 trillion cubic feet of gas (mean) for the
entire Montana Thrust Belt (range from 1.1 tcf to 20.7 tcf).
Echoes the 1995 report that carbon dioxide may be a
significant contaminant, especially in the Northwest, which
includes the North Fork.
Question 3. If S.255 were enacted into law, could the valid
existing leases or claims be explored or developed? If so, please
describe under what conditions those existing leases or claims could be
explored or developed. (What would be the process?)
Answer. S. 255 would withdraw all Federal lands in the North Fork
watershed of the Flathead River from all forms of location, entry, and
patent under the mining laws and from disposition from all laws related
to mineral and geothermal leasing. This means that the BLM would be
prohibited from issuing new leases and the lands would not be available
for location of additional mining claims. S. 255 does not impact
development of valid existing leases and development on valid, pre-
existing claims could continue.
The 39 valid, existing oil and gas leases within the North Fork
Watershed and the 18 in the Middle Fork Watershed of the Flathead
National Forest have been suspended since 1985 due to litigation. The
Conner v. Burford decision required the Forest Service to prepare an
Environmental Impact Study (EIS) under the National Environmental
Protection Act before authorizing any surface disturbing activities on
the affected leases. The leases will remain suspended, at least until
the Forest Service completes the EIS addressing the court's decision in
Conner v. Burford.
S. 255 does not affect future leases for ``saleable'' minerals,
such as sand and gravel.
Question 4. In your opinion, what is the likelihood that the
existing leases or claims will ever be developed if S. 255, is enacted
into law?
Answer. S. 255 as written does not affect valid existing rights.
Whether or not development will occur on valid existing leases or
claims will depend on a number of factors. If the suspension is lifted,
the BLM will work with the Forest Service to honor the valid existing
rights and to guide development of the leases.
Question 5. In your written testimony on S.368, the Federal Land
Transaction Facilitation Act, you recommend eliminating the date
restriction on identifying lands eligible to be sold through the FLTFA
process, rather than simply moving the date forward. Please explain why
BLM is making this recommendation.
Answer. The BLM currently oversees the public lands through 157
Resource Management Plans (RMPs). These include more than 75 RMP
revisions and major plan amendments since 2000. Additionally, the BLM
is currently involved in planning efforts on 57 new RMPs that the
bureau expects to complete within the next three to four years.
Planning updates are an ongoing part of the BLM's mandate under FLPMA.
In this process, the BLM often makes incremental modifications to the
plans, and identifies lands that may be suitable for disposal. All of
these planning modifications or revisions are made in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act, and are undertaken through a
process that invites full public participation. If the enactment date
is again utilized as the cut-off date, lands identified as suitable for
disposal after the enactment date and later sold would occur outside
the FLTFA process. Eliminating the restriction to provide more
flexibility on the lands eligible for FLTFA and would allow the BLM to
maintain a more consistent program over time.
Responses of Jamie Connell to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 1. On March 25, 2013, the President proclaimed the
establishment of the 242,555 acre Rio Grande del Norte National
Monument in New Mexico. S. 241, the Rio Grande del Norte National
Conservation Area Act, instead would establish the Rio Grande del Norte
National Conservation Area. Can you explain what the BLM sees as the
differences between a National Monument and a National Conservation
Area? What are the differences in BLM management? How are each funded?
Answer. Both National Conservation Areas (NCAs) and National
Monuments can and have been designated by Acts of Congress, and the BLM
manages these units consistent with Congressional direction. The
President can also designate an area as a National Monument under
Antiquities Act authority. Neither NCAs nor National Monuments can be
designated administratively by the Department or agency. Both NCAs and
National Monuments are typically designated to conserve, protect, and
enhance the unique resources and values for which they were designated,
as well as other purposes, including public enjoyment and encouragement
of partnerships. The BLM plans for and manages National Monuments and
National Conservation Areas similarly in that both are governed by the
FLPMA, go through public processes for land use planning, and follow
other laws and policies applicable to other public lands in accordance
with the enacting legislation or proclamation. Base funding for both
NCAs and National Monuments is provided through the specific budget
line item (``subactivity'') for National Monuments and National
Conservation Areas. Additional funds may be provided through other
subactivities including the land use planning, range management,
recreation, and others subactivities, depending on specific
circumstances.
Question 2. In your written testimony on S. 353, the Oregon
Treasures Act, with respect to the Rogue Wilderness proposal, you
suggest managing approximately 500 acres on the north-side of the Rogue
River, that you state does not meet the criteria to be designated as
wilderness,(due to past logging activities and existing primitive
roads), as ``potential wilderness. `` You then go on to explain that as
part of that management you would in your words: ``actively
restore.these lands to move them toward wilderness conditions . . . ''
What are ``potential wilderness'' areas? If an area does not currently
meet the criteria to be designated wilderness, how can it managed to
gain such characteristics?
Answer. The Congress first established a ``potential wilderness''
in 2006 with the designation of the Elkhorn Ridge Potential Wilderness
Area under Public Law 109-362. That law directed the BLM to either
actively or passively provide for the restoration of these public lands
before designating them as wilderness. In January 2011, the BLM
determined no additional restoration of the Elkhorn Ridge area was
necessary as the area had naturally rehabilitated itself. The area
formally became wilderness upon publication of the required Federal
Register notice, as provided for in Public Law 109-362.
In this case, there are 500 acres of non-wilderness within a large
wilderness area. While the area currently has roads from prior logging,
it would be possible and perhaps advantageous either to passively or
actively restore this area to a more natural state for purposes of
manageability. At that point it would make sense to include those lands
within the larger, surrounding wilderness.
______
Responses of Jim Pena to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. In your testimony on S. 736, the Alaska Subsistence
Protection Act, the Forest Service contends that it has existing
authority to change the fees charged for special use permits
authorizing the use of cabins, as required by the bill. What is the
actual authority the Forest Service has to change the fees? Please
provide the legal citation, if applicable.
Answer. 36 CFR Sec. 251.57(a) directs the Forest Service to collect
annual rental fees for special-use authorizations, and to base such
fees on fair market value. The Alaska Region publishes its fee schedule
annually in a regional supplement to Forest Service Handbook (FSH)
2709.11, Chapter 30.
When there are specific reasons for adjusting or changing fees from
the established fee schedule, such adjustments are made following
direction in FSH 2709.11, Section 31.5. The handbook allows Regions to
establish fees when there is no national rate system, or schedule for a
particular use.
Although Congress stated in FLPMA that the general policy of the
United States is to charge fair market value for use of its lands or
their resources, there are several provisions in ANILCA that may
reasonably be interpreted as providing exceptions to the general
policy. Section 1303(d) of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 3193(d)), dealing with
cabins, authorizes the renewal of cabin leases or permits "in
accordance with the provisions of the original lease or permit, subject
to such reasonable regulations as [the Secretary] may provide." This
provision may be a reasonably interpreted to authorize, for example, a
yearly fee of $10 if an original permit or lease had an annual fee of
$10.
Section 811(a) of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 3121(a)), dealing with
subsistence, provides that ``[t]he Secretary shall ensure that rural
residents engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable access to
subsistence resources on public lands.'' It is reasonable to interpret
this section to mean that since subsistence resources are often away
from permanent domiciles and in areas with inclement weather or
potentially dangerous wildlife, paying something less than market value
for necessary shelter is a way to ``ensure . . . reasonable access.''
Section 1316 of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 3204), dealing with temporary
facilities, states that ``the Secretary shall permit, subject to
reasonable regulation to insure compatibility, the continuation of
existing uses, and the future establishment, and use, of temporary
campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and other temporary facilities . .
. '' If the use of these facilities was permitted prior to ANILCA
without cost or for a cost less than market value, it would be
reasonable to interpret this section as allowing these uses to continue
at no or a low cost.
These interpretations are consistent with the Congressional
findings in Sec. 801 and the policy statements in Sec. 802 on ANILCA
that provide the expression of Congress of its intent of providing the
continuation and opportunity of the subsistence lifestyle of rural
Alaska residents, which may provide additional support for departing
from fair market value fees.
To date, the Forest Service has chosen to interpret ANILCA in such
a way as to be able to charge fair market value rental rates. That
interpretation, while it may be reasonable, is not required. S. 736
would clarify Congress' intent by establishing a maximum annual fee of
$250 for these special uses.
Question 2. Under S.736, the Alaska Subsistence Protection Act,
some subsistence users who also use their cabins for limited small-
scale commercial fishing would also see a fee reduction for the special
use permits authorizing the use of the cabins. Is it your position that
these users, as described, would also be eligible for reduced fees
under the existing administrative authority to change the fees you
referenced in your testimony? Please explain.
Answer. The revised regional policy would specify that cabin users
that qualify for the reduced fee based on subsistence use would be
charged the reduced rate if they hold an Alaska limited entry permit
for commercial fishing and do not generate more than $15,000 gross
annual income from that fishing.
Question 3. If the Forest Service exercises the authority it
contends it has to change the fees charged for subsistence users, how
would that administrative process work and how would the level of the
fee be determined?
Answer. The Alaska Region is in the process of issuing a contract
for appraisal services to determine whether the fees for four
structures in the Yakutat area represent fair market value of these
uses of National Forest System lands, and whether that amount could
influence ensuring reasonable access.
The results of the forthcoming appraisal will be considered along
with other information such as administrative costs, commercial uses,
and the need to provide access for subsistence uses of National Forest
System lands, to determine whether these fees should be adjusted. Any
adjustments would be made through a regional supplement to FSH 2709.11,
Chapter 30 - Fees. The update would be published by December in time
for the 2014 bills for land use fees.
Question 4. According to your testimony on S.255, the North Fork
Protection Act, the Forest Service contends that a portion of the
Middle Fork has a high potential for oil and gas occurrence. Is any of
this area proposed for withdrawal in S.255? Are any of the existing
leases or claims located in this ``high potential'' portion of the
Middle Fork?
Answer. The Middle Fork portion in the withdrawal bill only
includes a small strip of land between the Great Bear Wilderness to the
South and Glacier National Park to the North. A portion of that area
has been mapped as having the potential for a high occurrence of Oil
and/or Gas. There are as many as 18 leases in this area. The leases
have been suspended by the BLM for nearly 30 years and there is no
pending action on them.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Hon. Joe Manchin,
Chairman, Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee304 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Public Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee, 304
Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso:
Thank you for holding a hearing today on S. 256, which Energy and
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Ranking Member Lisa
Murkowski introduced at my request. The Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands is the only U.S. jurisdiction that does not have
ownership of the submerged lands three miles off its shores. S. 256
corrects that anomaly, providing the same interest in submerged lands
around the Northern Mariana Islands as is now enjoyed by American
Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
The language of S. 256 reflects recommendations made by the
Executive Branch, when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee held a hearing in the 112th Congress on S. 590, similarly
conveying submerged lands to the Northern Mariana Islands. And the
validity of the underlying purpose of the bill has been confirmed
through many iterations of the legislative process. In the 109th
Congress Representative Jeff Flake--now Senator Jeff Flake and a member
of this Committee--introduced H.R. 4255, conveying these submerged
lands; and a companion measure in the Senate, introduced by Senator
Pete Domenici, received a hearing before the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. In the 111th Congress, I introduced H.R. 934, also
conveying these submerged lands. That bill passed the House of
Representatives unanimously and was reported favorably by this
Committee. In the 112th Congress, my bill H.R. 670, also, passed the
House without dissent and its companion, S. 590, received a favorable
hearing.
I would like to underscore how important the conveyance of
submerged lands is to the people of the Northern Mariana Islands. For
thousands of years, our people fished the seas and harvested the other
marine resources around our islands. Yet, on February 25, 2005 the
people of the Mariana Islands awoke to learn that the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals had concluded that these waters and the submerged
lands below them did not belong to the people of the Northern Marianas,
but were the property of the United States. Recognizing, perhaps, the
oddity of this conclusion, the Court did point out in its decision that
Congress could return these lands to the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands. S. 256 does exactly that.
The return of these lands to the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands is not simply a matter of pride, however. Near-shore waters are
a source of important economic benefits to other coastal jurisdictions
and could become so for the Northern Marianas. By way of example,
Louisiana leases about 400,000 acres of its submerged lands for oyster
harvest, profiting the state and providing an economic opportunity for
the holders of some 8,000 leases. In addition, conveyance of submerged
lands around the Northern Mariana Islands to local control would
relieve the federal government of its current responsibility-and the
attendant costs-of management.
I request that this letter be made a part of your subcommittee's
hearing record on S. 256. I urge you to report the bill favorably, so
that it can be enacted quickly and so that the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands will get back the land that they have always believed
belonged to them.
Sincerely,
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Member of Congress.
______
Statement for the Department of the Interior, on S. 256
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the Department of the
Interior is pleased to provide this statement for the record in support
of enactment of legislation that would convey the three geographical
miles of submerged lands adjacent to the Northern Mariana Islands to
the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands. The Administration
would strongly support this bill if amended to address the issues
outlined below.
The bill is intended to give the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI) authority over its submerged lands from mean
high tide seaward to three geographical miles distant from its coast
lines.
It has been the position of the Federal Government that United
States submerged lands around the Northern Mariana Islands did not
transfer to the CNMI when the Covenant came into force. This position
was validated in Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in the case of
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. the United States
of America. One consequence of this decision is that CNMI law
enforcement personnel lack jurisdiction in the territorial waters
surrounding the islands of the CNMI without a grant from the Federal
Government.
At present, the CNMI is the only United States territory that does
not have title to the submerged lands in that portion of the United
States territorial sea that is three miles distant from the coastline.
It is appropriate that the CNMI be given the same authority as her
sister territories.
Second, on January 6, 2009, by presidential proclamation, the
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument was created, including the
Islands Unit, comprising the submerged lands and waters surrounding
Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion, the northernmost islands of the CNMI. While
creation of the monument is a historic achievement, it should be
remembered that the leaders and people of the CNMI were and are these
three islands' first preservationists. They included in their 1978,
plebiscite-approved constitution the following language:
ARTICLE XIV--NATURAL RESOURCES
Section 1--Marine Resources. The marine resources in the
waters off the coast of the Commonwealth over which the
Commonwealth now or hereafter may have any jurisdiction under
United States law shall be managed, controlled, protected and
preserved by the legislature for the benefit of the people.
Section 2--Uninhabited Islands . . . The islands of Maug,
Uracas, Asuncion, Guguan and other islands specified by law
shall be maintained as uninhabited places and used only for the
preservation and protection of natural resources, including but
not limited to bird, wildlife and plant species.
It is important to note that the legislature has never taken action
adverse to the preservation of these northern islands and the waters
surrounding them. The people of the CNMI are well aware of their
treasures. CNMI leaders consented to creation of the monument because
they believed that the monument would bring Federal assets for marine
surveillance, protection, and enforcement to the northern islands that
the CNMI cannot afford.
If enacted as introduced, S. 256 would become a public law enacted
subsequent to the creation of the monument. S. 256's amendments to the
Territorial Submerged Lands Act would convey to the CNMI the submerged
lands surrounding Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion without addressing the
effect of this conveyance on the administrative responsibilities of the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce. Presidential
Proclamation 8335 assigned management responsibility of the Marianas
Trench Marine National Monument to the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. The proclamation further
states that the ``Secretary of Commerce shall have the primary
management responsibility . . . with respect to fishery-related
activities regulated pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1801 et seq.) and
any other applicable authorities.'' The proclamation provides that
submerged lands that are granted to the CNMI ``but remain controlled by
the United States under the Antiquities Act may remain part of the
monument'' for coordinated management with the CNMI. As envisioned by
the Presidential Proclamation establishing the Marianas Trench Marine
National Monument, the Administration is proposing an amendment to
ensure that the outstanding resources in the waters surrounding the
CNMI's three northernmost islands remain protected. Thus, the
Administration recommends that language be included in S. 256
referencing the coordination of management contemplated within the
Proclamation prior to the transfer of the submerged lands within the
Islands Unit of the monument to the CNMI. This language is intended to
protect the Islands Unit of the monument and at the same time
acknowledge the prescient and historic conservation effort of the
leaders and people of the CNMI in protecting Uracas, Maug, and
Asuncion, and their surrounding waters.
The Administration recommends that S. 256 include an amendment to
subsection (b) of section 1 of the Territorial Submerged Lands Act,
Public Law 93-435, 48 U.S.C. 1705, as follows:
(xii) any submerged lands within the Islands Unit of the
Marianas Trench Marine National Monument unless or until such
time as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands enters
into an agreement with the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Commerce for the permanent protection and co-
management of such portion of the Islands Unit.
The Department of the Interior strongly supports S. 256 if it is
amended to include the legislative language provided. The Department of
the Interior looks forward to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands gaining rights in surrounding submerged lands similar to those
accorded her sister territories.
ON S. 360
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of
the Department of the Interior on S. 360, a bill to amend the Public
Lands Corps Act of 1993 to expand the authorization of the Secretaries
of Agriculture, Commerce and the Interior to provide service
opportunities for young Americans; help restore the nation's natural,
cultural, historic, archaeological, recreational and scenic resources;
train a new generation of public land managers and enthusiasts; and
promote the values of public service.
The Administration strongly supports S. 360 which promotes
environmental stewardship while providing job skill development to
succeed in the 21st century workforce. This bill would strengthen and
facilitate the use of the Public Land Corps (PLC) program, helping to
fulfill the Administration's commitment to build a 21st Century
Conservation Service Corps (21 CSC)--a national collaborative effort
encouraging young people across America to serve their community and
their country. During the last two Congresses, the Department testified
in support of similar bills. While we appreciate many of the revisions
since the 111th Congress' version that are reflected in S. 360, we
would like to have the opportunity to work with the committee on the
amendments described in this statement and any additional issues that
we identify as we continue our review of the bill.
Engaging America's Youth Through Service
While there are other federal programs that promote service,
expanding the use of the Public Land Corps is particularly important
because it also serves other high-priority goals. Specifically,
enactment of this legislation will help pave the way to meeting one of
the goals of the President's America's Great Outdoors initiative--to
develop a 21st Century Conservation Service Corps. In January 2013,
leaders of eight federal departments and agencies signed an agreement
setting up a national council to guide implementation of the
Administration's 21CSC--a national collaborative effort to put
America's youth and returning veterans to work protecting, restoring
and enhancing America's great outdoors. By signing the Memorandum of
Understanding, the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce,
and Labor, as well as the EPA Administrator, Chair of the President's
Council on Environmental Quality, CEO of the Corporation for National
and Community Service and Assistant Secretary for the Army (Civil
Works) established the National Council for the 21CSC-fully
implementing the first recommendation of the America's Great Outdoors
Initiative introduced by President Obama in 2010. The National Council
works across the federal government to support the 21CSC by enhancing
partnerships with existing youth corps programs that utilize PLC around
the nation; stimulating existing and new public-private partnerships;
and aligning the investment of current federal government resources.
Building on the legacy of President Roosevelt's Civilian
Conservation Corps during the Great Depression in the 1930s, the 21CSC
will help build and train a workforce that fully represents the
diversity of America while creating the next generation of
environmental stewards and improving the condition of our public lands.
The 21CSC focuses on helping young people--including diverse, low-
income, underserved and at-risk youth, as well as returning veterans--
gain valuable training and work experience while accomplishing needed
conservation and restoration work on public lands, waterways and
cultural heritage sites.
S. 360 would help both the Department and our sister agencies, USDA
and the Department of Commerce, offer expanded opportunities for our
youth to engage in the care of America's Great Outdoors, consistent
with efforts to fully implement the 21CSC. Additionally, the PLC
program helps the Department implement critical cost-effective
conservation projects that have direct positive impacts for the agency
and the public. This legislation will also help the Department fully
implement the 5-Year Plan for Pathways in Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math (STEM).
Background on Public Land Corps Program
The Department regards the Public Land Corps program as an
important and successful example of civic engagement and conservation.
Authorized by the National and Community Service Trust Act in 1993, the
program uses non-profit organizations such as the Student Conservation
Association (SCA) and other service and conservation corps
organizations affiliated with the Corps Network as the primary partners
in administering the Public Land Corps program. These public/private
partnership efforts help to leverage Federal dollars in some cases 3 to
1. In addition, other non-profit youth organizations such as the YMCA
also participate, as do local high schools and job-training youth
organizations. The youth organizations assist the National Park Service
(NPS) in its efforts to attract diverse participants to the parks by
recruiting youth 16-25 years of age from all socioeconomic, cultural
and ethnic backgrounds.
The National Park Service makes extensive use of the Public Land
Corps Act. This authority is used for the majority of all NPS youth
work projects that utilize a non-profit youth-serving organization as a
partner. In FY 2012, 1,699 employment opportunities were created
through the projects undertaken by these partner organizations. Many of
these projects were for maintenance and ecological restoration
purposes. The NPS receives a 25 percent cost match from the
participating partner organizations. During FY 2012, the NPS spent
approximately $14 million on youth conservation projects that engaged
qualified non-profit youth serving organizations. Funding for these
projects included Service-wide fee revenue, Youth Partnership Program,
Cyclic Maintenance, Repair/Rehab, and park-based funds. The NPS has
developed a Cyclic Maintenance/Repair Rehab Youth Initiative that is
designed to increase the number of maintenance projects that are
performed by youth partner organizations. Once this initiative is fully
implemented in 2014, NPS expects to dramatically increase the number of
employment opportunities for youth. Parks have been instructed to
identify maintenance projects could be set aside for PLC youth partner
organizations. Parks were also asked to identify historic
rehabilitation projects that could be performed by youth partner
organizations. A special task force comprised of senior NPS facility
managers has been formed to implement this initiative.
In 2011, the NPS and the Student Conservation Association began an
innovative PLC partnership to introduce college students of color to
professional opportunities in the NPS. This year, 72 students
participated in week-long orientation sessions at the Grand Tetons
National Park and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and in
Alaska. These sessions offered a behind the scenes experience of how
national park units are managed through seminars, workshops and other
hands on activities that focused on the importance of culture,
diversity and resource stewardship. They were introduced to the myriad
of career opportunities in the NPS that include facilities management,
fire and rescue, administration, resource management and visitor
education. Those successfully completing their orientation are given
the opportunity to serve in a 12-week paid summer internship at a
national park site. The interns are provided a NPS mentor who gives
advice, guidance and information regarding employment opportunities in
the NPS.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) also have a long history of employing young people
through the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) and through the Student
Conservation Association (SCA) and other youth service and conservation
organizations for a wide array of projects related to public lands
resource enhancement and facility maintenance under the Public Lands
Corps Act. Though most Corps are affiliated with the nationwide Corps
Network, they are often administered at the State, rather than national
level. The FWS and the SCA have partnered for over 20 years to offer
work and learning opportunities to students. In FY 2012, 278 SCA
interns and 476 other corps members served in 50 states and 3
territories to help the FWS achieve its resource management goals.
The BLM has engaged the services of non-profit youth service corps
for many years under financial assistance agreements at the state and
local level. In 2012, the BLM supported 2,100 youth employees through
non-profit youth service corps organizations. They participated in a
variety of conservation service activities such as recreation and river
management, historic building restoration and maintenance, inventory
and monitoring of cultural resources, wilderness, rangeland, and
renewable energy compliance; native seed collection and invasive
species control, and visitor services, including education and
interpretation.
In Arizona, as part of Project ROAM (Reclaim Our Arizona
Monuments), a crew from the Southwest Conservation Corps spent two
weeks rehabilitating and decommissioning up to 10 miles of illegal
smuggling roads in the Sonoran Desert National Monument.
In Harney County, Oregon, the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps,
which was established by the Oregon Legislature to increase
educational, training, and employment opportunities for youth, engaged
high school crews in such projects as improving trails, fences,
campgrounds, signs, and landscaping. The crews have also removed non-
native plants and weeds, cleaned up fire lookouts, and helped install
wildlife guzzlers.
The FWS manages 561 units of the National Wildlife Refuge System
that cover over 150 million acres of land and waters, as well as over
70 National Fish Hatcheries, which would directly benefit from programs
authorized under S. 360. National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish
Hatcheries enjoy strong relationships with the local communities, and
are involved in many community-based projects that help maintain
sustainable landscapes. The FWS's work is also supported by over 200
non-profit Friends organizations that assist in offering quality
education programs, mentoring, and work experience for youth.
In 2012, the FWS employed 1325 youth employees through 90 partners
that include local, State, and non-profit youth service corps. The FWS
also provided funding for a YCC program that hired 709 teenagers. The
FWS has working relationships with numerous colleges and universities
for students interested in pursuing careers in fish and wildlife
management.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013
S. 360 would make several administrative and programmatic changes
to the Public Land Corps Act. These changes would encourage broader
agency use of the program, make more varied opportunities available for
young men and women, and provide more support for participants during
and after their service. Appropriately, S. 360 would change the
program's name to Public Lands Service Corps, reflecting the emphasis
on ``service'' that is the hallmark of the program. President Obama is
committed to providing young people with greater opportunities and
incentives to serve their community and country. Through an enhanced
Public Lands Service Corps, we would be taking a critical first step
that direction.
Key changes that the legislation would make to existing law include:
Adding the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, which administers national marine
sanctuaries and conservation programs geared toward engaging
youth in science, service and stewardship, as an agency
authorized to use the program;
Establishing an Indian Youth Corps so Indian Youth can
benefit from Corps programs based on Indian lands, carrying out
projects that their Tribes and communities determine to be
priorities;
Authorizing a departmental-level office at the Department of
the Interior to coordinate Corps activities within all the
participating bureaus;
Requiring each of the three relevant departments to
undertake or contract for a recruiting program for the Corps;
Requiring a training program for Corps members and
identifying specific components the training must include;
Identifying more specific types of projects that could be
conducted under this authority;
Allowing participants in other volunteer programs to
participate in PLC projects;
Allowing agencies to make arrangements with other federal,
State, or local agencies, or private organizations, to provide
temporary housing for Corps members;
Providing explicit authority for the establishment of
residential conservation centers;
Authorizing agencies to recruit experienced volunteers from
other programs to serve as mentors to Corps members;
Adding ``consulting intern'' as a new category of service
employment under the PLC program;
Allowing agencies to provide living allowances, as
established by the applicable Secretary, and to reimburse
travel expenses;
Allowing agencies to provide non-competitive hiring status
for Corps members for two years after completing service,
rather than only 120 days, if certain terms are met; and
Allowing agencies to provide job and education counseling,
referrals, and other appropriate services to Corps members who
have completed their service.
We believe that the Department's program would benefit from
enactment of this legislation. As noted above, most PLC projects are
designed to address maintenance and ecological restoration needs, and
those types of projects would continue to be done under S. 360.
However, this legislation specifies a broader range of potential
projects, making it likely that Corps members could become involved in
such varied activities as historical and cultural research, museum
curatorial work, oral history projects and programs, documentary
photography, public information and orientation services that promote
visitor safety, and activities that support the creation of public
works of art. Participants might assist employees in the delivery of
interpretive or educational programs and create interpretive products
such as website content, Junior Ranger program books, printed handouts,
and audiovisual programs.
PLC participants would also be able to work for a partner
organization where the work might involve sales, office work,
accounting, science, communication, education, and management, so long
as the work experience is directly related to the protection and
management of public lands. The NPS and the FWS have a large number of
partner organizations that would be potential sponsors of young people
interested in the type of work they might offer.
Another important change is the addition of ``consulting intern''
as a new category of service employment under the PLC program,
expanding on the use of mostly college-student ``resource assistants,''
provided for under existing law. The consulting interns would be
graduate students who would help agencies carry out management analysis
activities. NPS has successfully used business and public management
graduate student interns to write business plans for parks for several
years, and this addition would bring these interns under the PLC
umbrella.
The Public Lands Service Corps would also offer agencies the
ability to hire successful corps members non-competitively at the end
of their appointment, which would provide the agency with an influx of
knowledgeable and diverse employees as well as career opportunities for
those interested in the agencies' mission. Such hiring authority is an
especially valuable tool for the Department to realize its goals
spelled out in the ``STEM Education and Employment Pathways Strategic
Plan.'' Refuges and hatcheries, for example, are uniquely qualified to
connect with local communities since the Service has so many refuges
across the country that are located near smaller communities and can
directly engage urban, inner city, and rural youth. For example,
partnering academic institutions are beginning to offer academic
certificate programs to enhance the students' work experience and
marketability for securing full-time employment in both the federal and
non-profit sectors, thereby providing orientation and exposure to a
broad range of career options.
An expanded Public Lands Service Corps program would provide more
opportunities for thousands of young Americans to participate in public
service while assisting the Department to address the critical
maintenance, restoration, repair and rehabilitation needs on our public
lands and gain a better understanding of the impacts of climate change
on these treasured landscapes.
Recommended Changes to S. 360
As noted at the start of this statement, we appreciate the changes
that have been made since the legislation was first introduced in the
111th Congress, and are reflected in S. 360. However, the
Administration recommends the following amendments to this bill:
1) Hiring preference
The Administration recommends changing eligibility for former PLSC
participants for non-competitive hiring status from two years to one
year. This change would make eligibility status consistent with other
Government-wide, non-competitive appointment authorities based on
service outside of the federal government.
2) Cost sharing for nonprofit organizations contributing to
expenses of resource assistants and consulting interns
Under current law in the case of resource assistants, and under S.
360 in the case of consulting interns, sponsoring organizations are
required to cost-share 25 percent of the expenses of providing and
supporting these individuals from ``private sources of funding.'' The
Administration recommends giving agencies the ability to reduce the
non-federal contribution to no less than 10 percent, only if the
Secretary determines it is necessary to enable a greater range of
organizations, such as smaller, community-based organizations that draw
from low-income and rural populations, to participate in the PLSC
program. This would make the cost-share provisions for resource
assistants and consulting interns parallel to the provisions under the
bill for other PLSC participants.
3) Definition of Eligible Public Lands
The Administration recommends technical amendments to clarify the
definition of ``Eligible service lands'' to include non-federal lands.
An expanded definition of eligible service lands to include federal,
state, local and privately-owned lands would provide additional
flexibility in carrying out conservation projects on non-federal lands
with willing landowners.
4) Agreements with Partners on Training and Employing Corps
Members
The Administration recommends striking the provision in S. 360 that
would allow PLSC members to receive federally funded stipends and other
PLSC benefits while working directly for non-federal third parties. The
need for this language is unclear, since agencies already have
flexibility in how they coordinate work with cooperating associations,
educational institutes, friends groups, or similar nonprofit
partnership organizations. Yet, the language could raise unanticipated
concerns over accountability, liability, and conflicts of interest. For
example, this language could allow an individual to receive a federally
funded stipend under a PLSC agreement, and then perform work for a
different non-federal group (such as a cooperating association) that is
subject to agency oversight under different agreements. This language
could blur the lines of responsibility that have been established in
response to IG concerns over the management of cooperating associations
and friends groups.
5) Participants/Terms
The Administration recommends striking the provision in S. 360 that
would limit the terms of service of Corps participants. This would
retain the authority provided for in current law which provides for
administrative flexibility in determining the appropriate length of
service for Corps participants.
6) Authorization of Appropriations
The Administration recommends amending S. 360 to eliminate the $12
million authorization ceiling for the program under existing law. This
would allow for an increased funding for the program in the future, as
the three Departments increase their use of the Public Lands Service
Corps.
The Department and its bureaus, along with its sister agencies are
presently working together to: establish a 21CSC; improve federal
capacity for recruiting, training and managing volunteers and volunteer
programs to create a new generation of citizen stewards; and improve
career pathways and to review barriers to jobs in natural resource
conservation and historic and cultural preservation. The proposed
amendments to the Public Lands Service Corps Act will support these
efforts to fully implement the President's America's Great Outdoors
initiative.
Finally, the Department of Labor also is reviewing S. 360 to ensure
child labor protections apply for participating youth, and will address
any concerns it has directly with the Subcommittee.
The Department is happy to answer any questions you or the other
members of the subcommittee have.
______
AMIGOS BRAVOS,
New Mexico, April 16, 2013.
Hon. Joe Manchin,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining, U.S.
Senate Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and
Mining, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Manchin and Barrasso:
I am writing in support of S. 312, the Carson National Forest
Boundary Adjustment Act, introduced by New Mexico Senators Tom Udall
and Martin Heinrich. I am very grateful that your Senate Energy and
Natural Resources subcommittee is holding a hearing on this important
piece of legislation for New Mexico on April 25, 2013. I am very
hopeful that this bill will move forward through the committee and
Senate as quickly as possible.
S. 312 is an important bill for my community. It will adjust the
boundaries of the Carson National Forest to include the 5,000 acre
Miranda Canyon tract, protecting our local drinking water supplies and
ensuring that this high--value resource land is open to the public
forever. Adding Miranda Canyon to the forest will provide residents and
visitors with enhanced pportunities to hike, hunt, mountain bike and
generally enjoy the outdoors.
The Miranda Canyon acquisition is strongly supported by the local
community in Taos, including our county commission. In addition to
expanding recreational access, the project will protect water resources
within the Rio Grande watershed, a segment of the Old Spanish National
Historic Trail, wildlife habitat, and the scenic viewshed from the
valley towards Picuris Peak. All of these attributes contribute to the
economy and quality of life in Taos County.
Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of
legislation before your committee.
Sincerely,
Brian Shields,
Executive Director.
______
Archery Trade Association,
Ulm, MN, April 22, 2013.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski:
We are writing you in regards to S.340, the Southeast Alaska Native
Land Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act. If advanced,
this legislation would transfer public lands from the Tongass National
Forest, in southeast Alaska, to the Sealaska Corporation. The
undersigned organizations, representing hunters, anglers, scientists,
and conservationists write to provide the following analysis and
recommendations on this bill.
Few places in the United States have the wildlife populations, the
public land values, and the hunting opportunities that are found today
in Alaska. We are fully committed to conserving this richness of
wildlife, and the hunting opportunities it affords, for the benefit of
future generations of Americans.
Revisiting previously settled Alaska land claims risks problems
We believe that S. 340 will have impacts on wildlife and hunting
that are far out of proportion to the number of acres involved in this
particular legislation. Of particular concern is the precedent that
this bill could set in terms of effectively re-writing key provisions
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). That important law
authorized the transfer of 44 million acres and about l billion dollars
to 13 regional corporations and 206 village corporations to resolve all
original land claims. Passage of S. 340 as proposed invites a cascade
of other claims to amend ANCSA with potentially severe implications for
public lands, and public access and use, in virtually all parts of
Alaska.
In hindsight, after many decades, any number of native corporations
can identify further changes to ANCSA and suggest alternate land
selections that would provide greater economic benefit to their
shareholders. While the largest percentage of ANCSA acres have been
conveyed, there still remain hundreds of thousands of acres in
outstanding entitlements, as well as many millions of acres in interim
conveyance status not yet patented. lf S. 340 is allowed to provide a
precedent for revisiting land selections in Alaska, with a new
opportunity for countless new high-value parcel selections (as with the
``future sites'' in S. 340), it may open a proverbial Pandora's Box of
controversy and conflict.
Already, there are proposals to create new native corporations with
brand new land selections in Southeast Alaska totaling more than
100,000 acres in addition to the Sealaska Corporation legislation now
under consideration. Legislation has been filed in previous sessions
that would transfer even more public land to native corporations
outside the framework of ANCSA\1\ If we support the full and immediate
conveyance of Sealaska's current entitlement under the provisions of
ANCSA, as reflected in their request to BLM filed in 2008. We do not
support advancement or passage of S. 340. It gives selective advantage
to a single corporation, and will create requests by others for
comparable benefits. The short and long-range implications of this bill
pose too great a risk to important fish and wildlife habitat in
Southeast Alaska to merit our support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. 5617, 109th Cong. (2006), and H.R. 5403, ll0th Cong.
(2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe this bill is fundamentally flawed. However, we also
realize that bills are often advanced despite a constituency's
concerns. Should this bill be scheduled for mark-up in your committee,
we respectfully request the following changes be made:
1) Exclude from the requested selection two special areas
with extraordinarily high wildlife values. These places are:
North Kuiu Island (4,728 acres) and Keete Inlet (11,863 acres),
on S. Prince of Wales. Both areas have been ranked extremely
high for wildlife values in a Tongass-wide conservation
assessment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Schoen and Dovichin, eds. A Conservation Assessment and
Resource Synthesis for the Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion in
Southeastern Alaska and the Tonigass National Forest, The Nature
Conservancy and Audubon Alaska (March 2007).
North Kuiu is famous for its large black bears, big trees
and rich estuarine habitat. The island produces over half the
black bears harvested in Southeast Alaska. Populations have
declined significantly as early clearcuts close in, reducing
numbers of deer, wolves, and bears. This area is a high
priority for restoration of logged areas (thinning) and
protection of the vital large tree old-growth habitat that
remains.
Keete Inlet is a nearly pristine watershed located between a
designated Wilderness area and a legislated roadless area. It
provides a highly productive and important large tree old-
growth refuge for wildlife on Prince of Wales Island where past
logging has been especially intensive. Logging in the Keete
Inlet drainage would compromise the integrity of the larger
area This watershed has also been identified by Trout Unlimited
as a priority for protection as one of the premier salmon
watersheds in the Tongass.
Protecting these vital watersheds from further logging would reduce
the acres in Sealaska's request. We would encourage selection of
alternative second-growth acres on the existing road system instead.
2) Sealaska's selections should be weighted towards existing
second-growth forest.--In general, these areas are already
compromised in terms of their wildlife and habitat values and
these are the lands best suited for long-term timber
production. As inducement, such lands include infrastructure
already in place, including roads, culverts, bridges, and log-
transfer facilities, representing millions of dollars of public
investment.
3) Selections should not occur within 100 ft of class 1 and 2
salmon streams. or on sensitive soils (e.g., karst and
wetlands). Logging on these selections should conform to best
management practices on National Forest lands. Moreover,
location of selections should be responsive to the desires of
nearby communities that depend on these lands for hunting and
other subsistence activities.
4) Public access to the proposed land selections should be
granted in certain terms.--The current provisions appear based
on the public easement provisions in section 17(b) of ANILCA,
which are rare in Southeast Alaska. Because ofBLM's past record
of vacating easements we request that language be inserted
which states: ``17(b) easements may not be vacated unless
comparable access is provided.'' In addition, Congress should
include language that assures free public access for hunting,
fishing and recreation. S. 340 should incorporate the access
language in the Koniag agreement. See example.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Example--The lands on Afognak Island required to be conveyed
shall remain open and available to recreational and sport hunting and
fishing and other recreational uses by the public commercial uses under
applicable law, subject only to such reasonable restrictions which may
be imposed by Koniag, Incorporated for the purposes of limiting or
prohibiting such public uses in the immediate vicinity of logging or
other commercial operations which may be undertaken by the corporations
upon the affected lands. Such restrictions shall comprise only those
restrictions necessary to insure public safety and to minimize
conflicts between recreational and commercial uses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) The management offish and wildlife populations on these
lands should be--the responsibility of the State of Alaska. The
provision in this bill which applies Title 8 of ANILCA (federal
subsistence priority) over private land in Alaska is
unprecedented, and should be changed. Authority for fish and
game management on these lands should be consistent with that
on all other state and private land in Alaska.
6) The legislation should specify that its passage does not
set a precedent for other Native Corporations to re-open
settlement agreements that were made under ANCSA.
Thank you, Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski, for considering our
views. We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this legislation
which will shape the future of Southeast Alaska in profound ways. While
there are many diverse and legitimate interests affected by this
legislation, we trust there is wide agreement on the need to protect
the basic integrity and productivity of this ecosystem for all, far
into the future.
We would greatly appreciate your help to that end, and happy to
meet with you or your staff for further discussion of our concerns and
recommendations.
Sincerely,
Archery Trade Association Bear Trust International,
Bowhunting Preservation Alliance,
Campfire Club,
Conservation Force,
Dallas Safari Club,
Delta Waterfowl Foundation,
National Trappers Association,
North American Bear Foundation,
North American Grouse Partnership,
Mule Deer Foundation,
Pope and Young Club,
Orion, The Hunter's Institute,
Safari Club International,
Texas Wildlife Association,
The Wildlife Society,
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership,
Wildlife Management Institute,
Wildlife Forever,
______
Statement of John H. Atkins, Jr., President, Molalla River Alliance,
Molalla, OR
Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Committee:
On behalf of the diverse organizations and individuals affiliated
with the Molalla River Alliance, thank-you for the opportunity to
submit testimony in favor of designating the upper 21 miles of the
Molalla River near Portland, Oregon as a Wild and Scenic River.
In the previous congress, Wild and Scenic legislation for the
Molalla River was favorably--and unanimously--reported to the House
floor for a vote. Regrettably, Congress adjourned before a vote could
be taken. In the Congress before that, the 111th Congress, the House
passed Wild and Scenic designation for the Molalla River with strong
bipartisan support, but Congress adjourned before a companion measure
could be taken up in the Senate.
While the outcome of these previous legislative initiatives was
disappointing, they were nevertheless important milestones toward what
we fervently hope will be final, favorable action in this Congress. Our
reasons for optimism:
There is no opposition whatever to Wild and Scenic status
for the Molalla River. The proposal has been thoroughly vetted
in Congressional hearings. The idea enjoys wide support in the
region among public officials, landowners, conservationists,
fisherman, campers, recreational users and literally dozens of
nonprofit organizations interested in preserving this special
place.
The Molalla River meets all of the criteria set forth in the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic
River system for a recreational classification, including:
1) ``Outstandingly remarkable'' geologic, hydrologic, scenic,
biological, and recreational values and free-flowing character
representative of a wild Cascadian stream. It provides
extensive native fish habitat including critical cold water
refuges and spawning beds. It is home to the largest run of
wild winter steelhead on the upper Willamette River system.
2) No private landholdings on the river would be adversely
affected.
3) A quarter-mile riparian buffer on both sides of the river
proposed for Wild and Scenic status is already in federal
ownership and managed by the BLM with great care for multiple
purposes, including recreational uses and habitat restoration
and protection.
4) With strong and varied input from river users, a
recreation management plan for the upper Molalla River and
adjacent Table Rock Wilderness in the Western Cascade Range
(the Molalla's headwaters) has been developed and adopted by
the BLM and is being implemented.
5)The upper part of the Molalla River proposed for Wild and
Scenic status is only an hour from the cities of Portland and
Salem, Oregon, and is accessible along its full stretch by a
paved road. New, handicapped-accessible campgrounds are under
development there by the BLM.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Molalla River
Alliance is an all-volunteer coalition of 45 nonprofit civic and
conservation groups; regional, state and federal agencies; numerous
user groups; river property owners; and individual conservationists. It
is not unusual for there to be disagreement among these diverse
organizations on policy issues relating to resource management. The
remarkable thing is that there is no disagreement among us that the
upper Molalla River merits Wild and Scenic protection. We hope that
this is the Congress when that will happen.
______
City of Winnemucca,
Winnemucca, NV, February 22, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate, 522 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mark Amodei,
U.S. House of Representatives, 222 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dean Heller,
United States Senate, 361A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Re: Support letter for H.R. 433 and S. 342 The Pine Forest Recreational
Enhancement Act
Dear Representative Amodei and Senators Reid and Heller:
The City of Winnemucca, strongly supports the Pine Forest
Recreational Enhancement Act. We are the largest City in Humboldt
County and we are a direct beneficiary of the recreational
opportunities in the Pine Forest Range. This recreational area is an
important point of destination for tourists,as well as local
residents,and the recommendations found in HR 433 and S.342 will serve
to enhance the recreational uses ofthis area. It is our opinion that
the locally driven and all-inclusive stakeholder process used to
develop these recommendations should be used as a model on how best to
resolve land use issues on Federal lands. The Pine Forest Working Group
should be commended for successfully developing unanimously supported
recommendations on how best to utilize these two Pine Forest Range
WSA's located in Northern Humboldt County. The recommendations include:
dropping areas of existing recreational conflict,adding designated
roadless areas,identifying lands for possible exchange, identifying
access roads, realigning roads away from riparian areas and improving
the Blue lake trailhead.
This legislation is supported by Humboldt County, the Nevada
Association of Counties and all major conservation and wildlife
organizations throughout Nevada. Passage is not only good for Nevada
but would also validate the ``bottom up'' land use review process where
all parties work together to develop the best overall use of federal
lands.
We greatly evada Congressional Delegation's support of HR 433 and
S.342.
DiAn Putnam,
Mayor.
______
Statement of Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, U.S. Representative
From Northern Mariana Islands, on S. 256
Thank you for holding a hearing today on S. 256, which Energy and
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ron Wyden and Ranking Member Lisa
Murkowski introduced at my request. The Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands is the only U.S. jurisdiction that does not have
ownership of the submerged lands three miles off its shores. S. 256
corrects that anomaly, providing the same interest in submerged lands
around the Northern Mariana Islands as is now enjoyed by American
Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
The language of S. 256 reflects recommendations made by the
Executive Branch, when the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee held a hearing in the 112th Congress on S. 590, similarly
conveying submerged lands to the Northern Mariana Islands. And the
validity of the underlying purpose of the bill has been confirmed
through many iterations of the legislative process. In the 109th
Congress Representative Jeff Flake--now Senator Jeff Flake and a member
of this Committee--introduced H.R. 4255, conveying these submerged
lands; and a companion measure in the Senate, introduced by Senator
Pete Domenici, received a hearing before the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. In the 111th Congress, I introduced H.R. 934, also
conveying these submerged lands. That bill passed the House of
Representatives unanimously and was reported favorably by this
Committee. In the 112th Congress, my bill H.R. 670, also, passed the
House without dissent and its companion, S. 590, received a favorable
hearing.
I would like to underscore how important the conveyance of
submerged lands is to the people of the Northern Mariana Islands. For
thousands of years, our people fished the seas and harvested the other
marine resources around our islands. Yet, on February 25, 2005 the
people of the Mariana Islands awoke to learn that the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals had concluded that these waters and the submerged
lands below them did not belong to the people of the Northern Marianas,
but were the property of the United States. Recognizing, perhaps, the
oddity of this conclusion, the Court did point out in its decision that
Congress could return these lands to the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands. S. 256 does exactly that.
The return of these lands to the people of the Northern Mariana
Islands is not simply a matter of pride, however. Near-shore waters are
a source of important economic benefits to other coastal jurisdictions
and could become so for the Northern Marianas. By way of example,
Louisiana leases about 400,000 acres of its submerged lands for oyster
harvest, profiting the state and providing an economic opportunity for
the holders of some 8,000 leases. In addition, conveyance of submerged
lands around the Northern Mariana Islands to local control would
relieve the federal government of its current responsibility-and the
attendant costs-of management.
I request that this letter be made a part of your subcommittee's
hearing record on S. 256. I urge you to report the bill favorably, so
that it can be enacted quickly and so that the people of the Northern
Mariana Islands will get back the land that they have always believed
belonged to them.
______
Statement of Sealaska Corporation, Native Regional Corporation,
Juneau, AK, on S. 340
Chairman Manchin and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of
Sealaska, the regional Alaska Native Corporation for Southeast Alaska,
regarding S. 340, the ``Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization and Jobs Protection Act,'' a bill that we refer to as Haa
Aani. ``Haa Aani'' is the Tlingit way of referring to our ancestral and
traditional homeland and the foundation of our history and culture.
Sealaska is one of 12 Native Regional Corporations established
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (``ANCSA'') of
1971. Our shareholders are descendants of the original Native
inhabitants of Southeast Alaska--the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian
people.
In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt established the Tongass
National Forest, which, along with Glacier Bay National Park, now
covers most of Southeast Alaska. The creation of the Tongass National
Forest, named for the Tongass Tlingit people, was in effect an act of
confiscation, certainly without the benefit of public process. This
bill is a small effort to right that inequity. This place is our
homeland--our past, our present, and our future.
Our cultural and burial sites occupy every corner of Southeast
Alaska and reflect that fact that we historically have used all of the
Tongass. This legislation is small but significant step towards
recognizing that historic affinity to Southeast Alaska. Our presence in
Washington, DC-thousands of miles from our home-is a reflection of the
significance of Haa Aani to our people and its importance in meeting
the cultural, social and economic needs of our community.
One hundred years ago, in October 1912, the Alaska Native
Brotherhood met for the first time, organizing itself in Sitka, Alaska
to address racism against Alaska Native peoples and to fight for Native
rights, including Native land claims. One hundred years later, things
are better, but we continue to seek a fair and balanced settlement of
our indigenous land claims. Our efforts to achieve resolution are
objected to, in many cases, by others who came later and who choose
today to ignore the Native history of use and occupancy of the land.
Those who claim we have no right to seek ownership of the lands that
are the subject of this legislation-those who claim we do not have a
``right'' to select land outside of the original ANCSA ``withdrawal
boxes'', discussed below-ignore history. We wish people no harm and we
desire to live in harmony with all our neighbors, but do we ask
Congress to do the right thing and to return a small fraction of our
land, from which we might seek to realize the goals of ANCSA: to
improve the social, cultural and economic wellbeing of our
shareholders.
Today, Sealaska seeks legislation that will define the location of
the last 70,000 acres of land we will receive under ANCSA. Our people
will own these lands in perpetuity. The land will support our villages
and will help sustain our people and our culture. This legislation is
about Native land-land that we will share with all people-but in our
hearts, Haa Aani.
S. 340 would convey just 70,000 acres in the Southeast Alaska
region, a region with almost 23 million acres of land; 85 percent of
the region is already in some form of conservation, wilderness or other
protected status. Putting the acreage in perspective, Sealaska's
remaining land entitlement represents about 1/3 of one percent of the
total land mass in Southeast Alaska.
Yet this legislation also represents a significant opportunity for
the public, this Congress, the Obama Administration, the Forest
Service, communities, environmental groups and others to get it right
for once in the Tongass. S. 340 protects ecologically sensitive areas,
sustains jobs and communities, and returns important cultural lands to
Southeast Alaska's Native people.
This legislation does not give Sealaska one acre of land beyond
that already promised by Congress. Sealaska has worked closely with the
timber industry, conservation organizations, tribes and Native
institutions, local communities, the State of Alaska, and federal land
management agencies to craft legislation that provides the best
possible result-the most balanced solution-for the people, communities
and environment of Southeast Alaska.
For you, Members of Congress and staff, who must consider this
legislation, one thing should be clear by now: Every acre of Southeast
Alaska is precious to someone. And given the vast array of interests in
Southeast Alaska, there is simply no way to achieve absolute consensus
on where and how Sealaska should select its remaining lands. We
believe-and we hope you will agree-that this legislation offers a
balanced solution as a result of our congressional delegation's
engagement with all regional stakeholders.
Can Sealaska Select its Remaining Land under Current Law?
Under ANCSA, as amended, Sealaska is required to select land from
within 10 ``withdrawal boxes''. Opponents of the legislation say that
Sealaska asked to select land from within the 10 withdrawal boxes in
1976, and today Sealaska should be forced to select the remaining
70,000 acres to which it is entitled under current law.
Let's set the record straight.
ANCSA authorized the distribution of approximately $1 billion and
44,000,000 acres of land to Alaska Natives and provided for the
establishment of 12 Regional Native Corporations and more than 200
Village Corporations to receive and manage the funds and land to meet
the cultural, social, and economic needs of Native shareholders.
Under section 12 of ANCSA, each Regional Corporation, except
Sealaska, was authorized to receive a share of land based on the
proportion that the number of Alaska Native shareholders residing in
the region of the Regional Corporation bore to the total number of
Alaska Native shareholders, or the relative size of the area to which
the Regional Corporation had an aboriginal land claim bore to the size
of the area to which all Regional Corporations had aboriginal land
claims.
While each other Regional Corporation received a significant
quantity of land under section 12 of ANCSA, Sealaska received land only
under section 14(h) of that Act. Sealaska did not receive land in
proportion to the number of Native shareholders in the region, nor did
it receive land in proportion to the size of the area to which Sealaska
had an aboriginal land claim because, in part, in 1968, minimal
compensation was paid to the Tlingit and Haida Indians pursuant to a
U.S. Court of Claims decision, which held compensation was due for the
taking of the 17 million acre Tongass National Forest and the 3.3
million acre Glacier Bay National Park.
Even if it could be considered equitable, the 1968 settlement
provided by the Court of Claims did not compensate the Tlingit and
Haida for 2,628,207 acres of land in Southeast Alaska also subject to
aboriginal title. The court also determined the value of the lost
Indian fishing rights at $8,388,315, but did not provide compensation
for those rights.
The 1968 settlement also should be viewed in context with the
universal settlement reached by Congress, just three years later, which
allowed for the return of 44 million acres and almost $1 billion to
Alaska's Native people. With a population that represented more than 20
percent of Alaska's Native population in 1971, Southeast Alaska Natives
ultimately would receive title to just 1 percent of land returned to
Alaska Natives under ANCSA, ostensibly because the taking of Native
lands in Southeast Alaska had been dealt with by the Court of Claims.
The Tlingit and Haida people thus led the fight for Native land claims,
and lost their land as a consequence.
Sealaska ultimately would be authorized to recover about 365,000
acres of land under ANCSA. However, under the terms of ANCSA, and
because the homeland of the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian people had
been reserved by the U.S. government as a national forest, the
Secretary of the Interior was not able to withdraw land in the Tongass
for selection by and conveyance to Sealaska. The only lands available
for selection by Sealaska in 1971 were slated to become part of the
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park or consisted essentially of mountain
tops.
For this reason, in the early 1970s, Sealaska requested that
Congress amend ANCSA to permit Sealaska to select lands in Southeast
Alaska, particularly located near its villages. Congress accomplished
this by offering to Sealaska the opportunity to make its selections
from within 10 withdrawal boxes established under ANCSA for the 10
Southeast Native villages recognized under that Act. In 1976, Congress
granted that right.
Sealaska agreed to select land from within the withdrawal boxes
because, in 1976, we had no other place to go. With two large pulp
mills holding contracts to cut timber throughout the Tongass at the
time, the political reality was such that Sealaska had no true ability
to ask for a fair settlement. The suggestion that we, Alaska's Native
people, invited our own exclusion from our own Native homeland is an
idea that any witness to our history should find repugnant. For us, it
was a choice between something limited, or nothing at all. It was
hardly a choice.
S. 340 addresses problems associated with the unique treatment of
Sealaska under ANCSA and the unintended public policy consequences of
forcing Sealaska to select its remaining land entitlement from within
the existing ANCSA withdrawal boxes. The legislation presents to
Congress a legislative package that will result in public policy
benefits on many levels. The benefits to the public of this legislation
are discussed in detail in this testimony.
Observers unfamiliar with ANCSA sometimes suggest that the Sealaska
legislation might somehow create a negative ``precedent'' with respect
to Alaska Native land claims. This seems odd in the context of the
history of the Tongass and its impact on the Southeast settlement.
Congress has, on multiple occasions, deemed it appropriate to amend
ANCSA to address in an equitable manner issues that were not
anticipated by Congress when ANCSA passed.
Sealaska's Land Settlement in the Context of Southeast Alaska's History
Two documents attached to this written testimony present an
historical perspective on the long struggle to return lands in the
Tongass to Native people: (1) the draft document funded by the Forest
Service and authored by Dr. Charles W. Smythe, ``A New Frontier:
Managing the National Forests in Alaska, 1970-1995'' (1995) (``A New
Frontier''); and (2) a paper by Walter R. Echo-Hawk, ``A Context for
Setting Modern Congressional Indian Policy in Native Southeast Alaska
(``Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska'').
The findings and observations summarized below are to be attributed
to the work of Dr. Smythe and Mr. Echo-Hawk. For the sake of brevity,
we have summarized or paraphrased these findings and observations. We
encourage people with an interest in the history of the Tongass
generally, or in this legislation specifically, to take the time to
read these documents in full.
Dr. Smythe's research, compiled in ``A New Frontier'', found, among
other things
By the time the Tongass National Forest was created in 1908,
the Tlingit and Haida Indians had been marginalized. As white
settlers and commercial interests moved into the Alaska
territory, they utilized the resources as they found them,
often taking over key areas for cannery sites, fish traps,
logging, and mining.
The Act of 1884, which created civil government in the
Alaska territory, also extended the first land laws to the
region, and in combination with legislation in 1903, settlers
were given the ability to claim exclusively areas for
canneries, mining claims, townsites, and homesteads, and to
obtain legal title to such tracts. Since the Indians were not
recognized as citizens, they did not have corresponding rights
(to hold title to land, to vote, etc.) to protect their
interests.
For decades prior to the passage of ANCSA, the Forest
Service opposed the recognition of traditional Indian use and
aboriginal title in the Tongass National Forest. As late as
1954, the Forest Service formally recommended that all Indian
claims to the Tongass be extinguished because of continuing
uncertainty affecting the timber industry in Southeast Alaska.
On October 7, 1959, the U.S. Court of Claims held that the
Tlingit and Haida Indians had established their claims of
aboriginal Indian title to the land in Southeast Alaska and
were entitled to recover compensation for the uncompensated
taking of their lands, and for the failure to protect their
hunting and fishing rights.
The efforts by the Interior Department in the 1930s and
1940s to establish reservations in Southeast Alaska greatly
alarmed the Forest Service--which at the time opposed the
principle of aboriginal rights and its serious conflict with
Forest Service plans for a pulpwood industry in Alaska.
The policy of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Administration,
with Harold Ickes as Interior Secretary, was to recognize
aboriginal rights to land and fisheries in Alaska and to
support efforts to provide a land and resource base to Native
communities for their economic benefit. Following hearings on
the aboriginal claims related to the protection of fisheries in
the communities of Hydaburg, Klawock and Kake, Secretary Ickes
established an amount of land to be set aside for village
reservations. The judgments of the Department of the Interior
were troubling to the Forest Service. If realized, the whole
timber industry in southeast Alaska would be jeopardized. The
Forest Service's ability to make timber sales would be in
doubt. The Department of Agriculture later expressed its
agreement with the efforts of the U.S. Senate to substantially
repeal the Interior Secretary's authority to establish the
proposed reservations in Southeast Alaska.
Walter Echo Hawk's paper, ``Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska'',
observes, in part:
The creation of the Tongass National Forest was done
unilaterally, more than likely unbeknownst to the Indian
inhabitants.
The Tongass National Forest was actually established subject
to existing property rights, as it stated that nothing shall be
construed ``to deprive any persons of any valid rights''
secured by the Treaty with Russia or by any federal law
pertaining to Alaska. This limitation was essentially ignored.
A Tlingit leader and attorney William Paul won a short-lived
legal victory in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miller
v. United States, 159 F. 2d 997 (9th Cir. 1947), which ruled
that lands could not be seized by the government without the
consent of the Tlingit landowners and without paying just
compensation.
To combat this decision, federal lawmakers passed a Joint
Resolution authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to sell
timber and land within the Tongass National Forest,
``notwithstanding any claim of possessory rights'' based upon
``aboriginal occupancy or title.'' This action ultimately
resulted in the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States decision,
in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that Indian land rights
are subject to the doctrines of discovery and conquest, and
``conquest gives a title which the Courts of the Conqueror
cannot deny.'' 348 U.S. 272, 280 (1955). The Court concluded
that Indians do not have 5th Amendment rights to aboriginal
property. The Congress, in its sole discretion, would decide if
there was to be any compensation whatsoever for lands stolen.
S. 340: A Balanced Solution with Significant Public Policy Benefits
Alaska's congressional delegation has worked hard to ensure that
the fair settlement of Sealaska's Native land claims is accomplished in
a manner that may have the greatest benefit to all of Southeast Alaska
while balancing the interests of individuals, communities, federal and
state land management agencies, and other interested stakeholders.
Thanks to the hard work of Alaska's congressional delegation, this
legislation largely is in symmetry with the Obama Administration's
goals for the Tongass, while also allowing Sealaska to apply to receive
cultural sites that are sacred to our people and land that will allow
us to develop natural resources in a sustainable manner, supporting
local jobs and communities.
Sacred Sites
S. 340 also would permit Sealaska to select up to 76
cultural sites, totaling 490 acres. In previous version of the
legislation, Sealaska would have been permitted to select more
than 200 cultural sites, totaling 3600 acres.
Sites will be selected and conveyed pursuant to the terms of
ANCSA Section 14(h)(1) and federal regulations.
Public access across sacred sites and along fishing streams
is protected in the legislation.
Small Parcels of Land
S. 340 permits Sealaska to select 9 parcels totaling 1,004
acres, near Native villages. The land offers cultural,
recreational, and renewable energy opportunities for the
villages.
More than 50 small parcels sites were considered in previous
version of the legislation. Sites heavily used by local
communities were removed from S. 340.
Sealaska will seek partnerships with local tribes, clans,
businesses and residents to enhance the indigenous and
recreational experience on these parcels of land and to share
local character and knowledge. Emphasis will be placed on the
hiring of local guides and cultural and historical interpreters
and traditional entertainers and artists.
Large Parcels of Land
Most of Sealaska's entitlement lands will be conveyed as
large parcels of land, comprising approximately 68,500 acres.
These lands were identified in consultation between Alaska's
congressional delegation, Sealaska, tribes, the State, local
communities, the Forest Service, local conservation groups, and
other regional stakeholders, avoiding ecologically sensitive
areas, the ``backyards'' of local communities, conservation
areas, and community watersheds.
These lands are generally roaded, and contain significant
second growth stands timber, supporting Sealaska's efforts to
develop a sustainable forestry economy on Native lands in
southeastern Alaska.
We believe this legislation is in symmetry with the goals of the
Obama Administration. S. 340 will:
Protect roadless areas and accelerate the transition away
from forest management that relied on old growth harvesting;
Help struggling communities in rural Alaska; and
Finalize Sealaska's Native entitlement in an equitable
manner, while supporting a transition by Sealaska to second
growth harvesting and maintaining rural jobs.
Without legislation to amend ANCSA, Sealaska will be forced either,
to select and develop roadless old growth areas within the existing
withdrawals or, to shut down all Native timber operations, with
significant negative impacts to rural communities, the economy of
Southeast Alaska, and our tribal member shareholders.
The public benefits of this legislation also extend far beyond
Sealaska Corporation and its shareholders. Pursuant to a revenue
sharing provision in ANCSA, Sealaska distributes 70 percent of all
revenues derived from the development of its timber resources among all
of the more than 200 Alaska Native Village and Regional Corporations.
Finalizing Sealaska's ANCSA land entitlement conveyances will also
benefit the federal government. This legislation allows Sealaska to
move forward with its selections, which ultimately will give the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service some finality and
closure with respect to Sealaska's selections in Southeast Alaska.
Sealaska's Role in Sustainable Natural Resource Development
Alaska Native Corporations were tasked by Congress in 1971 with
supporting the future of the Alaska Native community, in part by
utilizing lands returned by the United States to Native people to
develop resources that would advance the social, cultural, and economic
well-being of our tribal member shareholders.
We believe that Congress' core promise to Alaska Natives in ANCSA
was that Alaska Natives would be able to develop sustainable economies
so that we could work to achieve, for ourselves, economic parity with
the rest of America. Socio-economic parity was a focal point of Alaska
Natives and the Land, a congressionally-mandated study published in
1968, which was a foundational predicate for Congress to act on Alaska
Native land claims.
Sealaska has utilized some of its land base to develop timber
resources. Of the 290,000 acres Sealaska has received under ANCSA,
Sealaska has harvested timber on 189,000 acres in accordance with
modern forestry and forest engineering best management practices that
protect water quality, anadromous fish habitat, wildlife habitat,
forest soils, and the long term productivity of the forest. Selective
harvesting and even-aged harvesting has been employed. Less than half
(81,000 acres) of Sealaska managed forest lands have been clear cut
(even-aged harvest).
Sealaska's timber business has been a powerful economic engine that
has helped to support the regional economy for 30 years, and 70 percent
of Sealaska's timber revenues have been shared with more than 200
Alaska Native Corporations, as required under sections 7(i) and 7(j) of
ANCSA.
According to a report prepared in 2008, Sealaska and its
subsidiaries and affiliates expended over $45 million in just one year
in Southeast Alaska. Over 350 businesses and organizations in 16
Southeast communities benefited from spending resulting from Sealaska
activities. Sealaska provided over 363 full and part-time jobs with a
payroll of over $15 million. Including direct and indirect employment
and payroll, Sealaska supported 490 jobs and approximately $21 million
in payroll. Sealaska will utilize some of its remaining entitlement to
support sustainable forestry as part of a sustainable timber rotation
that sustains hundreds of jobs in our region, in perpetuity, while
protecting important forest resources.
Seeking Sustainable Solutions by Selecting Outside the
``Boxes''
Unlike the other eleven Regional Native Corporations, Sealaska was
directed to select the entirety of its entitlement lands only from
within boxes drawn around a restricted number of Native villages in
Southeast Alaska. Forty-four percent of the ten withdrawal areas is
comprised of salt water, and multiple other factors limit the ability
of Sealaska to select land within the boxes. This has made it difficult
to make equitable selections. No other Regional Corporation was treated
in this manner under ANCSA.
To date, Sealaska has selected 290,000 acres of land under ANCSA
from within the withdrawal boxes. Based on BLM projections for
completion of Sealaska's selections, and our own estimates, the
remaining entitlement to be conveyed to Sealaska is approximately
70,000 acres. The only remaining issue is where this land will come
from. Of the lands available to Sealaska today within the ANCSA
withdrawal boxes:
270,000 are included in the current U.S. Forest Service
inventory of roadless forestland;
112,000 acres are comprised of productive old growth;
60,000 acres are included in the Forest Service's inventory
of old growth reserves; and
much of the land is comprised of important community
watersheds, high conservation value areas important for sport
and commercial fisheries and/or areas important for subsistence
uses.
The Sealaska legislation allows Sealaska to move away from
sensitive watersheds and roadless areas, to select a balanced inventory
of second growth and old growth, and to select most of its remaining
ANCSA lands on the existing road system, preserving on balance tens of
thousands of acres of old growth, much of which is inventoried
``roadless old growth''.
Local Impact of S. 340: Saving Jobs in Rural Southeast Alaska
While jobs in Southeast Alaska are up over the last 30 years, many
of those jobs can be attributed to industrial tourism, which creates
seasonal jobs in urban centers and does not translate to population
growth. In fact, the post-timber economy has not supported populations
in traditional Native villages, where unemployment among Alaska Natives
ranges above Great Depression levels and populations are shrinking
rapidly.
We consider this legislation to be the most important and immediate
``economic stimulus package'' that Congress can implement for Southeast
Alaska. Sealaska provides significant economic opportunities for our
tribal member shareholders and for residents of all of Southeast Alaska
through the development of an abundant natural resource--timber.
Our shareholders are Alaska Natives. The profits we make from
timber support causes that strengthen Native pride and awareness of who
we are as Native people and where we came from, and further our
contribution in a positive way to the cultural richness of American
society. The proceeds from timber operations allow us to make
substantial investments in cultural preservation, educational
scholarships, and internships for our shareholders and shareholder
descendants. Through these efforts we have seen a resurgence of Native
pride in our culture and language, most noticeably in our youth. Our
scholarships, internships and mentoring efforts have resulted in Native
shareholder employment above 80 percent in our corporate headquarters,
and significant Native employment in our logging operations. To create
new jobs and new economic models, Sealaska is sponsoring initiatives in
Southeast Alaska like mariculture farming.
We are also proud of our collaborative efforts to build and support
sustainable and viable communities and cultures in our region. We face
continuing economic challenges with commercial electricity rates
reaching $0.61/kwh and heating fuel costs sometimes ranging above $6.00
per gallon. To help offset these extraordinary costs, we work with our
logging contractors and seven of our local communities to run a
community firewood program. We contribute cedar logs for the carving of
totems and cedar carving planks to schools and tribal organizations. We
are collaborating with our village corporations and villages to develop
hydroelectric projects. We do all of these collaborative activities
because we are not a typical American corporation. We are a Native
institution with a vested interest in the well-being of our
communities.
ANCSA authorized the return of land to Alaska Natives and
established Native Corporations to receive and manage that land so that
Native people would be empowered to meet their own cultural, social,
and economic needs. S. 340 is critically important to Sealaska, which
is charged with meeting these goals in Southeast Alaska.
Economic Development on Native Lands and Sealaska's Sustainable Forest
Management Program
Sealaska has a responsibility to ensure the cultural and economic
survival of our communities, shareholders and future generations of
shareholders. Sealaska also remains fully committed to responsible
management of the forestlands for their value as part of the larger
forest ecosystem. At the core of Sealaska's land management ethic is
the perpetuation of a sustainable, well-managed forest, which supports
timber production while preserving forest ecological functions.
Significant portions of Sealaska's classified forest lands are set
aside for the protection of fish habitat and water quality; entire
watersheds are designated for protection to provide municipal drinking
water; and there are zones for the protection of bald eagle nesting
habitat. The decision to cut trees is not taken lightly, and is always
based on the best science and best forest practices.
Sealaska re-plants, thins and prunes native spruce and hemlock
trees on its lands, thereby maintaining a new-growth environment that
better sustains plant and wildlife populations, and better serves the
subsistence needs of our communities. In fact, Sealaska has invested a
great deal of resources in improving its forest sustainability program,
including investing in ongoing silviculture research that is led by
professors at Oregon State University and reaching out to organizations
like the Forest Stewardship Council to ensure best possible management
practices. All of Sealaska's even aged second-growth forest that is
ripe for precommercial thinning is managed accordingly, creating
healthy young forests that provide wildlife habitat. Sealaska maintains
a silviculture program that rivals the best of programs implemented by
the Forest Service or private landowners. Our harvesting program as
well as thinning and planting investments provide jobs for our
shareholders and others in the region, and help maintain the ecological
value of our forests.
We are committed to investing the time, money and hard work in
progressive management of second growth stands, to capture alternative
economies from forest management and to ensure that our place in the
timber industry remains a sustainable, although realigned, component of
the region's economy. Sealaska is also committed to using its land base
to create alternative economies, revenues, and jobs-by developing an
aquaculture industry, fostering cultural tourism, and investing in
renewable energy development.
Time is of the Essence
Timing is critical to the success of the legislative proposal
before you today. Without a legislative solution, we are faced with
choosing between two scenarios that ultimately will result in dire
public policy consequences for our region. If S. 340 is stalled during
the 113th Congress, either Sealaska will be forced to terminate all of
its timber operations within approximately one year for lack of timber
availability on existing land holdings, resulting in job losses in a
region experiencing severe economic depression, or Sealaska must select
lands that are currently available to it in existing withdrawal areas.
The Forest Service's Plans for the Tongass: Impact of S. 340 on Tongass
Management
The U.S. Forest Service has, in the past, expressed concern that S.
340 could impact its ability to harvest second growth to support
Southeast Alaska mills, and could impact other goals laid out in the
2008 Amendment to the Tongass Land Use Management Plan.
We believe Sealaska's offer to leave behind roadless old growth
timber in the Tongass is significant; it is a proposal we believe this
Administration should support based on its goals to protect these types
of forest lands. We also believe that the lands proposed for conveyance
under S. 340 conflict minimally with and may ultimately benefit the
Forest Service's Transition Framework for the Tongass.
For the Forest Service, the most significant limitation to an
accelerated transition to second growth is the large number of acres of
older second growth that is in restricted timber use status. If S. 340
were to pass today, under current standards and guidelines, the Forest
Service would retain at least 223,000 acres of suitable second growth.
In addition, it retains 177,000 acres of unsuitable second growth that
is available for stewardship and restoration. We believe the total pool
of lands available to the Forest Service is more than sufficient to
support log demand for the Forest Service's Transition Framework.
We also believe that Sealaska and the Forest Service agree that, to
achieve a successful transition to second growth, the Forest Service
needs Sealaska to remain active in the timber industry in the Tongass,
because Sealaska's operations support regional infrastructure
(including roads and key contractors), development of markets
(including second growth markets), and development of efficient and
sustainable second growth harvesting techniques.
In short, the likely success of the Forest Service's transition to
second growth is significantly improved if Sealaska second growth
operations are in close physical proximity to Forest Service second
growth operations.
Sealaska has 30 years of experience developing and distributing
Southeast Alaska wood to new and existing markets around the world.
Sealaska recently has pioneered second growth harvesting techniques in
Southeast Alaska and is active in this market. Partnership between
Sealaska and the Forest Service, collaborating to build new markets
based on second growth, will have a better chance of success.
This legislation, which moves Sealaska into some older second
growth, ensures that Sealaska will engage as an early partner with the
Forest Service in second growth market development, while continuing to
provide local jobs and supporting the local economy.
It is also important to note that regardless of whether Sealaska
selects within the existing ANCSA withdrawal boxes or outside of those
boxes, Sealaska must select its remaining entitlement lands from within
the Tongass National Forest. In other words, by selecting Native
entitlement lands, whether under existing law or the proposed
legislation (S. 340), Sealaska's land selections will incorporate lands
suitable for timber development and may require the Forest Service to
adjust land management plans to account for such selections. However,
the ability to make minor management adjustments is built into the
revised Tongass Land Management Plan.
Conservation Considerations and S. 340
This legislation is fundamentally about the ancestral and
traditional homeland of a people who have lived for 10,000 years in
Southeast Alaska. For more than 200 years, people from across the
western world have traveled to Southeast Alaska with an interest in the
rich natural resources of the region--an area the size of Indiana. The
Russians arrived in the late 18th Century to harvest sea otters and
other fur-bearing animals. In the mid-1800s, Americans came to
Southeast Alaska to hunt for whales, and in the late-1800s, gold miners
and fishing interests arrived. In the first half of the Twentieth
century, the fishing industry built traps at the river entrances,
depleting salmon populations. In the 1950s and 1960s, two pulp mills
signed contracts with the United States that gave the mills virtually
unlimited access to Tongass timber. In the meantime, Natives from the
late-1800's through the 1930s were moved from their traditional
villages to central locations, in part for federally-mandated
schooling.
In the late Twentieth Century conservation-minded groups, like
industrialists before them, introduced new ideas about how best to
serve the public interest in the Tongass. The conservation community
writ-large has long fought to preserve the Tongass for its wilderness
and ecological values, and we have often worked with them to seek
appropriate conservation solutions for the forest. Our resource
development practices have evolved over thirty or more years to better
ensure to preservation of the Tongass' ecological values.
We do not, however, appreciate environmentalism that does not
recognize the human element-that people have to live in this forest,
and that people rely on a cash economy to survive. Industrial tourism,
ecotourism, and fishing provide limited employment to the residents of
our Native villages. But these jobs are limited, and have not prevented
widespread outmigration from our communities.
We also do not accept environmentalism that does not recognize that
the Tongass is a Native place, and that Native people have a right to
develop natural resources on Native lands while seeking to balance the
needs of our tribal member shareholders, our neighbors, and the forest
itself. We welcome people to our homeland--but we do not appreciate the
assault, by some, on our right to exist and subsist in the Tongass.
There are groups that consistently agree with us that we should
have our land, but wish to decide-to the smallest detail-where that
land should be. Native people have always been asked to go second.
Let's not forget that S. 340 addresses the existing land entitlement of
the Native people of Southeast Alaska.
In attempting to resolve Sealaska's dilemma in an equitable manner,
Alaska's congressional delegation has been careful to draft legislation
to be in alignment with the current Administration's stated objectives
for the Tongass; specifically, to protect roadless areas, reduce
harvesting of old growth, and accelerate transition to second growth
management.
Moreover, lands within the original withdrawal boxes are not
without significant and important public interest value. For example,
approximately 85 percent of those lands now designated available to
Sealaska are classified by the Forest Service as designated roadless
areas. A significant portion is Productive Old-Growth forest (some
112,000 acres), with over half of that being Old Growth Reserves as
classified under the 2008 Amendment to the Tongass Land Use Management
Plan. S. 340 allows these roadless old growth lands to return to public
ownership, to be managed as the federal government and general public
sees fit.
Some groups have claimed that ``the lands that Sealaska proposes to
select . . . are located within watersheds that have extremely
important public interest fishery and wildlife habitat values.'' They
suggest that the lands Sealaska would forego selecting-within the
withdrawal boxes-do not have the same ecological value. We think these
claims are, frankly, baseless, and we challenge those concerned for the
ecology of Tongass forestlands to acknowledge that allowing land
selections to proceed under S. 340 will result in net benefits for
watersheds, anadromous streams, public hunting and fishing and
recreation, the preservation of roadless old growth forests, sensitive
species, and the Forest Service's conservation strategy for the
Tongass. We agree that all lands in our region are valuable, and we
believe our federal lands and our Native lands should be managed
responsibly. We acknowledge the need for conservation areas and
conservation practices in the Tongass. This bill meets those goals.
Legislation Forged through Public Process
The alternative selection pool identified in the Sealaska bill is a
product of an exceptional public process, including five previous
Congressional hearings, one markup, more than a dozen meetings held by
Senator Murkowski's staff in Southeast communities, and hundreds of
community meetings held by Sealaska with the State of Alaska,
communities, mill owners and industry representatives, conservation
groups, the Forest Service, the BLM, and Members of Congress.
The Sealaska bill has the support of the full Alaska delegation and
many residents, communities and tribes throughout Southeast Alaska and
statewide:
The legislation is supported by the National Congress of
American Indians, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Alaska
Federation of Natives, the ANCSA Regional Presidents & CEOs,
the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of
Alaska, and numerous tribes throughout Alaska and the western
United States.
The Alaska Forest Association--which works with and
represents Southeast Alaska's remaining timber mills--fully
supports the Sealaska legislation.
The Sealaska bill represents a net gain to the U.S. Forest
Service of roadless and old growth timber in the Tongass
National Forest. The legislation is fundamentally aligned with
the goals of the Obama Administration.
Some critics of this bill want to shut down this legislation
because it might mean that Sealaska selects lands on ``their'' islands,
in ``their'' backyard, near ``their'' favorite spots. At some level,
this is understandable. But every acre of the Tongass is precious to
someone and we need somewhere to go to fulfill our entitlement.
Alaska's congressional delegation has been careful to select lands that
do not fall within conservation areas and are appropriate for timber
development, and has compromised and adjusted the legislation several
times on the basis of concerns expressed by non-governmental
organizations, communities, and individuals.
A New Bill for the 113th Congress
In the 113th Congress, Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich
introduced new legislation that incorporates a number of changes, all
intended to resolve the outstanding concerns of the Obama
Administration. S. 340 incorporates the following changes:
Final entitlement acreage identified--In the 112th Congress,
the Sealaska bill did not finalize Sealaska's entitlement upon
enactment. Instead, the bill provided for finalization of
entitlement by allowing Sealaska to identify its remaining
entitlement lands from within a pool of lands. S. 340
identifies with finality the land Sealaska will receive.
--BLM has estimated Sealaska's final entitlement as approximately
70,075 acres.
--S. 340 establishes Sealaska's final entitlement at 70,075 acres.
The bill will convey the land to Sealaska.
Forest Service concerns addressed--S. 340 ``squares up'' the
boundaries of Sealaska's economic parcels so the boundaries can
more easily be managed by the Forest Service, removes some
lands that conflicted with the Forest Service's Tongass
National Forest conservation plan and/or timber harvesting
plan, and remove parcels of land on Prince of Wales Island,
Tuxekan Island, and Kosciusko Island that raised local
concerns.
--S. 340 conveys a significant amount of non-economic land to
Sealaska as part of the compromise with the Administration.
Trade and Migration Routes removed--In the 112th Congress,
the Sealaska bill would have conveyed three Traditional and
Customary Trade and Migration Routes to Sealaska. S. 340 simply
recognizes the Trade and Migration Routes as Native places and
directs the Forest Service to ensure that public access to the
Routes is assured. The new bills would not place these lands in
Native ownership.
Cemetery sites and historical places removed--In the 112th
Congress, the Sealaska bill would have allowed Sealaska to use
3600 acres of its existing entitlement to select cemetery sites
and historical places, consistent with Section 14(h)(1) of
ANCSA.
--S. 340 would allow Sealaska to select up to 76 cemetery and
historical sites, and will limit the acreage available for
those sites to just 490 acres.
--S. 340 would also place 25 foot public easements along streams
that run through cemetery sites and historical places
conveyed to Sealaska, to permit continued public access to
the streams for fishing, subject to the right of Sealaska
to regulate such access to protect cultural resources.
Small parcel sites removed: In the 112th Congress, the
Sealaska bill would have conveyed 30 small parcels to Sealaska
to be used for cultural or economic activities.
--S. 340 will reduce the number of small parcel sites to 9-mostly
located within the original withdrawal boxes-as a result of
opposition by some groups to the conveyance of such sites
into Native ownership as ``precedent-setting''.
Agreement with Forest Service required for forest
development roads--S. 340 allows Sealaska to utilize certain
forest roads, build a road, and upgrade an existing log
transfer facility, so that Sealaska will be able to access a
land-locked parcel conveyed to it.
New restrictive covenant language removed--In the 112th
Congress, the Sealaska bill would have modified\1\ restrictive
covenants in place on cemetery site and historical places to
ensure certain activities, like running culture camps, could
take place at the sites. As a result of local opposition to
this language, the language was removed from the bill when
introduced in the 113th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under existing restrictive covenants, the standards for
determining whether the use of an Alaska Native cemetery site or
historical place is incompatible with or in derogation of the values of
the site ``are found in relevant portions of 36 C.F.R. 800.9.'' 36
C.F.R. 800.9, in turn, provides for review by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation of federal agency compliance with federal
requirements for the protection of historic properties established
under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). In
the 112th Congress, the Sealaska bill essentially retained the
restrictions on the use of cemetery sites and historical places, but
eliminated the paternalistic review process that was established for
federal agencies.
--S. 340 also includes the following conservation-oriented
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendments:
Buffers on anadromous streams--The Obama Administration
requested that Sealaska accept 100 foot buffers on three
anadromous streams across economic lands conveyed to Sealaska.
State law already provides sufficient, 67 foot buffers (or
larger, depending on terrain) for these streams. Nevertheless,
S. 340 was modified to include three conservation easements
along anadromous streams.
New conservation areas established in the Tongass--As in the
112th Congress, S. 340 would designate approximately 150,000
acres of forestland, much of which is roadless old growth, for
new conservation in the Tongass National Forest.
CMAI waiver--S. 340 does not include language requested by
the Forest Service that would allow the harvest of trees prior
to the ``culmination of mean annual increment'' (CMAI) of
growth in areas that are available for commercial timber
harvest under the Tongass Land Management Plan to facilitate
the transition away from the commercial timber harvest of old
growth timber in the region. The Administration has proposed to
offer an amendment, during a markup of S. 340, that would
require such language. Sealaska does not oppose reasonable
language to that effect.
Our Future in Southeast Alaska
Our people have lived in the area that is now the Tongass National
Forest since time immemorial. The Tongass is the heart and soul of our
history and culture. We agree that areas of the region should be
preserved in perpetuity, but we also believe that our people have a
right to reasonably pursue economic opportunity so that we can continue
to live here. S. 340 represents a sincere and open effort to meet the
interests of the Alaska Native community, regional communities, and the
public at large.
It is important for all of us who live in the Tongass, as well as
those who value the Tongass from afar, to recognize that the Tlingit,
Haida and Tsimshian are committed to maintaining both the natural
ecology of the Tongass and the Tongass as our home. We therefore ask
for a reasoned, open, and respectful process as we attempt to finalize
the land entitlement promised to our community more than 40 years ago.
We ask for your support for S. 340.
Gunalcheesh. Thank you
______
Field Institute of Taos,
Arroyo Seco, NM.
Hon. Joe Manchin,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and
Mining, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Manchin and Barrasso:
I am writing in support of S. 312, the Carson National Forest
Boundary Adjustment Act, introduced by New Mexico Senators Tom Udall
and Martin Heinrich. I am very grateful that your Senate Energy and
Natural Resources subcommittee is holding a hearing on this important
piece of legislation for New Mexico on April 25, 2013. I am very
hopeful that this bill will move forward through the committee and
Senate as quickly as possible.
S. 312 is an important bill for my community. It will adjust the
boundaries of the Carson National Forest to include the 5,000 acre
Miranda Canyon tract, protecting our local drinking water supplies and
ensuring that this high-value resource land is open to the public
forever. Adding Miranda Canyon to the forest will provide residents and
visitors with enhanced opportunities to hike, hunt, mountain bike and
generally enjoy the outdoors.
The Miranda Canyon acquisition is strongly supported by the local
community in Taos, including our county commission. In addition to
expanding recreational access, the project will protect water resources
within the Rio Grande watershed, a segment of the Old Spanish National
Historic Trail, wildlife habitat, and the scenic viewshed from the
valley towards Picuris Peak. All of these attributes contribute to the
economy and quality of life in Taos County.
Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of
legislation before your committee. Sincerely, Susan Fiore Executive
Director
Sincerely,
Susan Fiore,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of Joseph Gersen, Director of Government Relations, Public
Lands Service Coalition
On behalf of the Public Lands Service Coalition, I would like to
express our appreciation and support for S.360 and encourage the
committee to pass the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013. An
expanded Public Lands Service Corps will provide more opportunities for
thousands of young Americans to gain valuable workforce training and
career development while assisting our nation's land and water
management agencies to address critical restoration, maintenance, and
rehabilitation needs. Engaging young adults through the Public Lands
Service Corps will also help address billions of dollars in backlogged
maintenance needs on our nation's public lands and waters, address
youth unemployment, and prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next
generation of natural resource employees.
The Public Lands Service Coalition promotes youth service jobs and
career development on public/tribal lands and waters. Each year,
Coalition members engage more than 20,000 young people in jobs and
service opportunities, and they are poised to expand greatly to address
the record-high youth unemployment, the billions of dollars of
backlogged maintenance needs on public lands, the need for future
federal public lands employees, the national youth obesity epidemic,
and the disengagement of youth from the great American outdoors.
The Public Lands Service Coalition supports this legislation
because it will:
Increase the utilization of service and service learning as
a strategies for accomplishing work on our nation's public
lands and waters;
Introduce more young Americans to our nation's public lands
and waters--instilling in them an appreciation for nature, an
enjoyment of healthy recreation, and a sense of stewardship for
our natural resources and the environment;
Expand career development and workforce training
opportunities for Public Lands Service Corps members by
increasing non-competitive hiring status allowing more young
people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, the
ability to pursue careers in land and natural resource
management.
Raise the profile of the Public Lands Service Corps within
the relevant land and water management agencies making it
easier for conservation corps to participate and partner with
the federal government.
The History of the Corps Movement
The Civilian Conservation Corps employed six million young men
between 1933 and 1942 who planted nearly three billion trees and
constructed more than 800 parks. Subsequent federal efforts built on
the CCC model include Peace Corps (1961), Job Corps (1964), Youth
Conservation Corps (1971), Young Adult Conservation Corps (1977), and
AmeriCorps (1994). In addition, numerous state and non-profit groups
launched similar efforts beginning with Student Conservation
Association in 1957 and followed by the California Conservation Corps
in 1976. The Public Lands Service Corps Act builds on these recent
efforts by strengthening the ability of the federal government to
partner with these non-federal entities to meet national priorities.
The Corps Model
Experienced conservation corps programs engage thousands of young
people on public and tribal lands and waters each year. Operating in
all 50 states, these programs provide public and tribal land and water
managers with an effective and efficient way to complete necessary and
important projects and give young people opportunities to further their
education and improve their career prospects, while building the next
generation of land and water managers and resource stewards.
Each year, Corps complete hundreds of high-quality and often
technical projects on public lands and waters. Project sponsors
consistently express a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of
work and productivity of the Corps. Virtually all federal project
partners (99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps again. Types of
work include, but are not limited to:
Protecting wildlife and preserving public lands and waters
(ecological restoration);
Preparing communities for disasters and responding when
needed;
Enhancing recreation on public lands;
Protecting communities and public lands from the devastating
effects of wildfires;
Preserving historic structures;
Supporting individual placements and internships at the land
and water management agencies.
Cost Savings through Expanding Public Private Partnerships
Corps work with federal and land and water management partners on a
project based approach (conservation, restoration, and historic
preservation) with cooperative agreements. Implementing this
legislation will help stretch the budgets of land and water management
agencies, and will not require additional appropriations.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013 will help the land and
water management agencies achieve more with their current operating
budgets though partnerships with conservation corps. Research conducted
by the National Park Service's Park Facility Management Division in
2012 found that using Conservation Corps to complete maintenance and
trail projects provided a cost savings of over 50 percent. Further, it
is estimated that the cost of two professional level SCA interns, is
the same as one seasonal employee doing similar work. These public
private partnerships leverage federal investment by bringing at least a
25 percent match.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013 will be implemented, and
its goals achieved, without additional appropriations to the affected
land and water management agencies. PLC programs engaging conservation
corps in service on public lands are being paid for from within
existing agency appropriations, from recreation fees retained by the
agencies, and from charitable contributions. Utilizing existing
appropriations is possible because conservation corps complete work
that the agencies would be doing anyway with the appropriated funds,
primarily derived from maintenance and operating funds. Work projects
completed by conservation corps has the added advantage of requiring
fewer federal resources than if carried out by agency employees or
private contractors.
Conclusion
The Public Lands Service Corps Act would simultaneously address
youth unemployment, billions of dollars of backlogged maintenance needs
on our nation's public lands and waters while preparing a diverse group
of youth to be the next generation of natural resource employees.
Meanwhile, the Corpsmembers could, in turn, utilize their AmeriCorps
Education awards and the expanded non-competitive hiring authority
contained in this bill to pursue careers in land management-thus
building and diversifying the next generation of the resource
management workforce.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. On behalf
of the entire Public Lands Service Coalition, I again want to express
our appreciation and support for S.360. We look forward to working with
you to see it enacted into law.
Coalition Members
Backcountry Horsemen of America
Calif. Assn of Local Conservation Corps
California Conservation Corps
Campfire USA
Canyon Country Youth Corps
Citizens Conservation Corps of West Virginia
Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy, Inc
Coconino Rural Environment Corps
Colorado Youth Corps Association
Conservation Corps Minnesota and Iowa
EarthCorps
Greater Miami Service Corps
Groundwork USA
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
Montana Conservation Corps
National Congress of American Indians
National Parks Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
Nevada Conservation Corps
Northwest Youth Corps
Operation Fresh Start
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (CO)
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (NM)
Sequoia Community Corps
Sierra Club
Southeast Alaska Guidance Association
Southwest Conservation Corps
Student Conservation Association
Texas Conservation Corps
The Corps Network
The Wellness Coalition
The Wilderness Society
The Y
Utah Conservation Corps
Vermont Youth Conservation Corps
Veterans Green Jobs
Washington Conservation Corps
______
Livestock Industry Organization,
April 24, 2013.
Hon. Joe Manchin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining, U.S.
Senate, Natural Resources Committee, 306 Hart Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and
Mining, U.S. Senate, Natural Resources Committee, 307 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 20510
Dear Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso:
The Public Lands Council (PLC), American Sheep Industry Association
(ASI), National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), Association of
National Grasslands (ANG) and undersigned livestock groups strongly
support the Grazing Improvement Act (S. 258) and thank you for
providing a hearing for this important legislation. Passage of S. 258
would be a great contribution toward our goal of providing a stable
business environment to our members, ranchers who hold grazing permits
on public lands. These ranchers face ever- increasing uncertainty as to
the future of their permits on lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service. Through no fault of their
own, our members risk the loss of their grazing permits due to the
abiding and substantial backlog of required environmental analysis by
the agencies. S. 258 would alleviate this problem.
Each year, our members rely on appropriation rider language to
ensure their permits will be reissued when the agencies are unable to
complete the required environmental analysis. The agency backlog of
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is only worsened by
the constant stream of process-based lawsuits by anti-grazing special
interest groups. Many of these groups' sole purpose is to eliminate
livestock grazing from public lands, and they use taxpayer dollars to
fund their agenda. Their lawsuits consume considerable agency
resources, further delaying the required NEPA analyses and perpetuating
the cycle of litigation. The Grazing Improvement Act would help
alleviate that cycle.
S. 258 would allow permits to be renewed under existing terms and
conditions until the renewal process is complete, and allow for
categorical exclusion of grazing permits from NEPA if those permits are
to continue under current management. By extending the life of a
grazing permit from 10 years to 20 years, your legislation would reduce
the number of allotments due for environmental analysis each year.
These provisions will contribute to the stability and assurances our
members need in order to continue successful operations.
The continued success of our members' ranching operations holds
great implications for the landscapes and rural economies of the West.
Failed operations lead to the fragmentation of private and public lands
and the loss of wildlife habitat. Innumerable rural communities count
grazing on public lands as their lifeblood, and many of them are
already experiencing the hardships that accompany the loss of grazing
permits. This legislation is of great importance to our members, and we
look forward to working with your subcommittee to ensure its success.
Sincerely,
Public Lands Council
American Sheep Industry Association
Association of National Grasslands
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Arizona Cattle Growers' Association
Arizona Wool Producers Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Wool Growers Association
Colorado Cattlemen's Association
Colorado Wool Growers Association
Idaho Cattle Association
Idaho Wool Growers Association
Montana Stockgrowers Association
Montana Public Lands Council
Montana Association of State Grazing Districts
Montana Wool Growers Association
New Mexico Stock Growers' Association
New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.
Nevada Cattlemen's Association
Nevada Wool Growers Association
North Dakota Stockmen's Association
Oregon Cattlemen's Association
Oregon Sheep Growers Association
South Dakota Cattlemen's Association
South Dakota Public Lands Council
Utah Cattlemen's Association
Utah Wool Growers Association
Washington Cattlemen's Association
Washington State Sheep Producers
Wyoming Stock Growers Association
Wyoming Wool Growers Association
______
Statement of Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr., Vice President, Government
Relations and Policy, on S. 507
The National Trust for Historic Preservation (National Trust)
appreciates the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Member
Senator Maria Cantwell for her leadership sponsoring S. 507, the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park and the co-sponsorship of
fellow Committee Members Senators Lamar Alexander and Martin Heinrich.
We are also grateful for the co-sponsorship of Senators Patty Murray
and Tom Udall.
My name is Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr. and I am the Vice President for
Government Relations and Policy. The National Trust is a privately-
funded nonprofit organization chartered by Congress in 1949. We work to
save America's historic places to enrich our future. With headquarters
in Washington, D.C., 13 field offices, 27 historic sites, 746,000
members and supporters and partner organizations in 50 states,
territories, and the District of Columbia, the National Trust works to
save America's historic places and advocates for historic preservation
as a fundamental value in programs and policies at all levels of
government. For more than 20 years, the National Trust has advocated
for the preservation and enhancement of historic and cultural resources
on federal public lands.
Manhattan Project Background
The Manhattan Project is the unparalleled story of a nation coming
together for the common cause of creating the atomic bomb. It has been
has been called ``the single most significant event of the 20th
century.'' The top-secret Manhattan Project brought an end to World War
II, altering the role of the United States in the world community and
effectively setting the stage for the Cold War. The newly created
technology fostered advances in the newly emergent fields of
chemotherapy, high-speed computer technology, genomics, and
bioengineering.
The facilities associated with the Manhattan Project were top-
secret, hidden in rural locations, their perimeters bound with security
fencing. The project's classified status demanded sites be situated
beyond the range of enemy aircraft, isolated from population centers
yet accessible to a ready labor supply as well as rail and motor
transportation. At its peak, the Manhattan Project employed over
130,000 people, many of whom knew only enough to do their job and
nothing more.
The laboratory sites possessed enough land to erect laboratories
and secret towns which would house scientists, construction workers,
and their families. Specific laboratories--the Los Alamos Laboratory,
New Mexico, the Oak Ridge Reservation, Tennessee, and the Hanford Site,
Washington--were central to the mission and were established to support
research. Seventy years later these laboratories retain architectural
integrity and are considered eligible for National Register of Historic
Places and National Historic Landmark (NHL) designation. These sites,
owned and managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), were listed
on the National Trust for Historic Preservation's 11 Most Endangered
Historic Places in 2009, with the Enola Gay Hanger at Utah's Wendover
Airfield representing threatened Manhattan-era properties. In 2011, the
National Trust named Manhattan Project resources to its National
Treasures program, an initiative dedicated to saving the places that
tell America's stories through the engagement of a wide range of
partners and the development of strategic campaigns to protect these
irreplaceable places.
Oak Ridge
The Manhattan Project's enormous scale and ambition is illustrated
at the laboratories located in Oak Ridge, TN--facilities exclusively
focused on three distinct methods of uranium enrichment--
electromagnetic separation (Y-12 Plant), gaseous diffusion (K-25 Site),
and liquid thermal diffusion (X-10). Sixty percent of all expenditures
for the Manhattan Project supported research occurring at Oak Ridge,
which also functioned as the project's administrative headquarters.
Construction advanced at such a rapid pace that in December 1945, the
Engineering News Record described the achievement as the equivalent of
having constructed the Panama Canal within a period of 12 months.
Among the facilities to remain at Oak Ridge are Y-12's Beta-3
Electromagnetic Separation Racetracks, one of only two plants in the
world capable of producing over 200 stable isotopes. The enriched
uranium produced by Y-12's calutrons ultimately created the weapon
detonated over Hiroshima. Y-12's Building 9204-3 houses working
calutrons, the only surviving production-level electromagnetic isotope
separation facility to exist in the United States.
The X-10 Graphite Reactor produced the world's first significant
amounts of plutonium, proving that plutonium production could be
achieved. The reactor was designed as the pilot plant for reactors
later constructed in Hanford, Washington. The Graphite Reactor remains
in its original condition and currently serves as a museum where
visitors can examine the reactor face and control panels.
Hanford
The B Reactor was completed in 1944, becoming the world's first
reactor to produce plutonium on a large-scale, including manufacturing
plutonium for the Trinity device, the Nagasaki weapon and subsequent
Cold War weapons. At 250 megawatts, the B Reactor was built on a
significantly larger scale than its prototype, the X-10 Graphite
Reactor, which produced only 4,000 kilowatts of power. Placement of the
B Reactor along the banks of the Columbia River permitted cooling of
the reactor's network of aluminum tubes and uranium slugs with river
water which was pumped at a rate of 75,000 gallons per minute.
Hanford's B Reactor is currently accessible via limited, ticketed
public tours.
Los Alamos
The laboratories erected at Los Alamos, New Mexico, were
constructed on the grounds of the former Los Alamos Ranch School, a
boy's boarding school which was situated approximately 40 miles from
Santa Fe. Established in 1928, the school's 800-acre campus contained
Fuller Lodge, a rustic log-constructed building which met the school's
administrative needs and a scattering of rustic outbuildings. Acquired
by the Army in 1942 for inclusion in the Manhattan Project, the
school's rural campus was soon overrun by barracks and chemistry and
physics laboratories.
By 1944, Los Alamos was home to the ``V-Site,'' the lab in which
the world's first plutonium bombs were assembled. ``The Gadget,'' code
name of the prototype ``Fat Man'' bomb detonated over Nagasaki, was
assembled here. Today, the community retains historic residential
buildings and public spaces dating from the World War II period. Los
Alamos' visitors will have unique opportunity to walk the same paths as
the giants of 20th century physics.
Permanent Preservation and Interpretation
In 2000, the DOE named eight ``Signature Facilities'' historic
properties whose original function is directly associated with the
Manhattan Project. In awarding this designation, DOE's intention was to
advance the preservation and interpretation of properties associated
with the Manhattan Project. The agency proposed to integrate
departmental headquarters and field activities by creating a working
partnership with all interested outside entities, organizations, and
individuals, a coalition inclusive of Congress, state/local
governments, and various other stakeholders. Though certainly a
prestigious designation, the listing does not preclude building
deterioration or demolition of historic facilities affiliated with the
Manhattan Project. Five of the eight ``Signature Facilities'' are
included in H.R. 1208 including Hanford's B Reactor and T Plant
Chemical Separations Building; Oak Ridge's Y12 Beta-3 Racetracks and X-
10 Graphite Reactor; and Los Alamos' V-Site Assembly Building/Gun Site.
The Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act
On October 18, 2004, President Bush approved Public Law 108-340,
``The Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act.'' The act
directed the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, in
consultation with the Department of Energy, to conduct a study for the
preservation and interpretation of historic sites associated with the
Manhattan Project. At its conclusion in July 2011, the Feasibility
Study determined resources located in Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and
Hanford possessed the national significance required for designation
and were suitable for inclusion in the National Park System. The
National Trust for Historic Preservation fully endorses this
conclusion.
The National Trust recognizes this designation will be accompanied
by controversy. History is often fraught with complexity, and it is for
this reason the National Trust supports creation of the Manhattan
Project National Historical Park. Anyone who has visited National Park
Service units like Little Bighorn, Manzanar, Andersonville or Little
Rock Central High School, understands that these National Parks are
authentic sites--the places where history happened--and not places of
celebration. The National Park Service's mission in these locations is
to preserve and objectively interpret what is often complex and
contentious history, so current and future Americans have opportunity
for a deeper understanding of seminal events.
The National Trust believes historic sites associated with the
Manhattan Project are no less worthy of National Park recognition and
we recommend the Members of Senate support S. 507 to establish the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Present and future
generations of Americans deserve the opportunity to see and learn our
nation's history through the unbiased and balanced interpretation of
the National Park Service and to draw their own conclusions about how
the Manhattan Project changed the world. Recognizing that sites
associated with the Manhattan Project are places of commemoration,
Pulitzer-prize winning historian Richard Rhodes describes these
authentic places in this way: ``The factories and bombs that Manhattan
Project scientists, engineers, and workers built were physical objects
that depended for their operation on physics, chemistry, metallurgy,
and other natural sciences, but their social reality--their meaning, if
you will--was human, social, political. The same is true of
Williamsburg and Bandelier and the Declaration of Independence.''
The National Trust for Historic Preservation applauds the National
Park Service and the Department of Energy for their successful
collaboration. We anticipate this innovative partnership will bring
many benefits to the Manhattan Project National Historical Park,
creating a model which may be replicated by other agencies. We look
forward to working with you, and request that National Park designation
be completed by the close of the 113th Congress.
______
Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife,
Reno, NV, April 10, 2013.
Hon. Mark Amodei,
U.S. House of Representatives, 222 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington DC.
Re: Support letter for H.R. 433
Dear Congressman Amodei:
We are writing to both thank you for your support of HR 433 and
also to encourage you to cont1nue to be a strong advocate for this
bill, until it is enacted into law.
The ``Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act of 2013'' is a
shining model of how public lands bills should be developed here in the
west. It was a ``ground up'' process that started at the stakeholder
level. 23 Members of the ``Pine Forest Working Group'', consisting of
ranchers, miners, hunters, fishermen, Wilderness advocates off-road-
vehicle enthusiasts, and other affected Interests. developed a
comprehensive set of recommendations that were unanimously supported by
the members of the working group. These recommendations were then
unanimously supported by the Humboldt County Commtssion. The entire
process and recommendations were then supported by a resolution from
the Nevada State legislature and the Nevada Association of Counties.
This legislation is also supported by all the major wildlife and
conservation NGO's in Nevada
This process and the resulting bill show that when local interests.
that know and love the land, come to the table and work together, good
things can happen. Some examples of how stakeholders working together
can produce good results include:
Areas of conflict, (approximately 1,000 acres from the
original WSA's), primarily popular camping and vehicle access
areas. were dropped from the final recommendations 1n order to
accommodate the desires of local users and stakeholders.
Additional acres of roadless landscape, where no conflicts
occurred, were added to create a more logtcal and definable
boundary.
Identifies and preserves cherry stem road access that all
parties supported
Two existing roads were realigned to avoid wet meadow or
ripanan areas, allowing continued access.
Would enlarge the Blue Lakes trailhead for additional
camping and parking.
Approximately 1,500 acres of mountamous private lands.
bordenng the proposed wilderness, were Identified for exchange
for BLM lands at the edge of the mountains adjacent to private
landowners. Once transferred, these exchanged BLM lands can
then be developed for agricultural production.
We need passage of this bill not only to ratify the hard,
painstakmg work of the Humboldt County Commission and the stakeholder
group, but also to serve as an example of how a ``ground up'' process,
involving local stakeholders and user groups, can resolve local issues
through a locally dnven process Th1s is the model for how our pubhc
lands should be managed. Passage of this bill is not only good for
Nevada but can also serve as an example for other western states to
follow. Again we would like to urge you to contmue to be a champion for
the H.R. 433. Too often land management decisions are perceived as
being dictated from the top down with madequate mput from local
residents that are both intimately knowledgeable and deeply affected by
these decisions.
Sincerely,
The Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife
Larry Johnson,
President (also Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited-Reno).
Tom Smith,
Vice President (also Director, Truckee River Flyfishers).
Mike Bertoldi,
Treasurer.
Stacey Trivitt,
President Carson Valley Chukar Club.
Ed Wagner,
Director, Nevada Wildlife Federation.
Joel Blakeslee,
President, Nevada Trapper's Association.
Judi Caron,
Director (also President, Safari Club International, Northern
Nevada Chapter).
Jim Puryear,
Director (also Member, Nevada Guides and Outfitters Association).
Bob Brunner,
Director.
Willie Molini,
Director (also Director of Nevada Waterfowl Coalition).
Mike Cassidy,
Director (also Vice President Safari Club International, Northern
Nevada)
______
Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife,
Reno, NV, April 10, 2013.
Hon. Dean Heller,
U.S. Senate, 361A Russell Senate Office Building, Washtngton, DC.
Re: Support letter for S. 342
Dear Senator Heller:
We are writing to both thank you for your support of S. 342 and
also to encourage you to continue to be a strong advocate for this
bill, until it is enacted into law.
The ``Pine Forest Range Recreation Enhancement Act of 2013'' is a
shining model of how public lands bills should be developed here in the
west. It was a ``ground up'' process that started at the stakeholder
level. 23 Members of the ``Pine Forest Working Group'', consisting of
ranchers, miners, hunters, fishermen, Wilderness advocates, off-road-
vehicle enthusiasts. and other affected tnterests, developed a
comprehensive set of recommendations that were unammously supported by
the members of the working group. These recommendations were then
unanimously supported by the Humboldt County Commission. The entire
process and recommendations were then supported by a resolution from
the Nevada State legislature and the Nevada Association of Counties.
This legislation is also supported by all the major wildlife and
conservation NGO's in Nevada
This process and the resulting bill show that when local interests,
that know and love the land, come to the table and work together, good
things can happen. Some examples of how stakeholders worktng together
can produce good results include.
Areas of conflict. (approximately 1,000 acres from the
original WSA's), primarily popular camping and vehicle access
areas, were dropped from the final recommendations in order to
accommodate the desires of local users and stakeholders.
Additional acres of roadless landscape, where no conflicts
occurred, were added to create a more logical and definable
boundary.
Identifies and preserves cherry stem road access that all
parties supported.
Two existing roads were realigned to avo1d wet meadow or
riparian areas, allow1ng continued access.
Would enlarge the Blue Lakes trailhead for additional
camping and parking.
Approximately 1,500 acres of mountainous pnvate lands,
bordering the proposed wilderness, were identified for exchange
for BLM lands at the edge of the mountains adjacent to private
landowners. Once transferred, these exchanged BLM lands can
then be developed for agncultural product1on
We need passage of this bill not only to ratify the hard,
painstaking work of the Humboldt County Commission and the stakeholder
group, but also to serve as an example of how a ``ground up'' process,
involving local stakeholders and user groups, can resolve local issues
through a locally driven process. This is the model for how our public
lands should be managed. Passage of this bill IS not only good for
Nevada but can also serve as an example for other western states to
follow. Again we would like to urge you to continue to be a champion
for the S.342. Too often land management decisions are perceived as
being dictated from the top down with inadequate input from local
residents that are both intimately knowledgeable and deeply affected by
these decisions
Sincerely,
The Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife
Larry Johnson,
President (also Director, Nevada Bighorns Unlimited-Reno).
Tom Smith,
Vice President (also Director, Truckee River Flyfishers).
Mike Bertoldi,
Treasurer.
Stacey Trivitt,
President Carson Valley Chukar Club.
Ed Wagner,
Director, Nevada Wildlife Federation.
Joel Blakeslee,
President, Nevada Trapper's Association.
Judi Caron,
Director (also President, Safari Club International, Northern
Nevada Chapter).
Jim Puryear,
Director (also Member, Nevada Guides and Outfitters Association).
Bob Brunner,
Director.
Willie Molini,
Director (also Director of Nevada Waterfowl Coalition).
Mike Cassidy,
Director (also Vice President Safari Club International, Northern
Nevada)
______
New Mexico Wildlife Federation,
Albuquerque, NM.
Hon. Joe Manchin,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Manchin and Barrasso:
I am writing on behalf of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation and
our 9,000 members and supporters to express my strong support of S.
312, the Carson National Forest Boundary Adjustment Act, introduced by
New Mexico Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich. Founded in 1914 by
Aldo Leopold and other conservation-minded sportsman, the New Mexico
Wildlife Federation is New Mexico's oldest conservation organization
dedicated to protecting New Mexico's wildlife, habitat and outdoor way
of life.
I am very grateful that your Senate Energy and Natural Resources
subcommittee is holding a hearing on this important piece of
legislation for New Mexico on April 25, 2013. I am very hopeful that
this bill will move forward through the committee and Senate as quickly
as possible.
S. 312 is an important bill for my community. It will adjust the
boundaries of the Carson National Forest to include the 5,000 acre
Miranda Canyon tract, protecting our local drinking water supplies and
ensuring that this high-value resource land is open to the public
forever. Adding Miranda Canyon to the forest will provide residents and
visitors with enhanced opportunities to hike, hunt, mountain bike and
generally enjoy the outdoors.
The Miranda Canyon acquisition is strongly supported by the local
community in Taos, including our county commission. In addition to
expanding recreational access, the project will protect water resources
within the Rio Grande watershed, a segment of the Old Spanish National
Historic Trail, wildlife habitat, and the scenic viewshed from the
valley towards Picuris Peak. All of these attributes contribute to the
economy and quality of life in Taos County.
Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of
legislation before your committee.
Sincerely,
Alan Hamilton Ph.D.
Conservation Director.
______
Nevada Wilderness Project,
Reno, NV, February 28, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate, 522 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mark Amodei,
U.S. House of Representatives, 222 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dean Heller,
U.S. Senate, 361A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support letter for H.R. 433 and S. 342
Dear Representative Amodei and Senators Reid and Heller,
First, let me thank you for introducing and supporting S. 342 and
H.R. 433. Your leadership on this important issue is deeply appreciated
by the entire conservation community.
As you know, The Humboldt County Commission sanctioned a ``ground
up'' process to review and formulate recommendations on two key
Wilderness Study Area's (WSA's) within the Pine Forest Range in
northern Nevada. Twenty three members of the ``Pine Forest Working
Group'' developed a comprehensive set of recommendations that all the
various user groups unanimously supported and which in turn were
unanimously supported by the Humboldt County Commission, by a 5-0 vote.
The review process and subsequent recommendations were also
supported by resolutions from the 2011 Nevada Legislature and the
Nevada Association of Counties. The legislation is supported by all
major conservation and wildlife NGO's throughout Nevada.
The recommendations drop areas of conflict from the designated
WSA's and add additional acres of roadless no conflict landscape to
firm up a boundary. In addition, approximately 1500 acres of
mountainous private lands, bordering the proposed wilderness, were
identified for exchange for BLM lands by the private landowners.
We need passage of S.342 and H.R. 433 to ratify the work of
Humboldt County Commission in support of a ``ground up'' land use
review process that has unilateral support. Passage of the legislation
is not only good for Nevada; it validates the process of involving
local and regional user groups to resolve local issues through a
locally driven process.
Sincerely,
Jeneane Harter,
Executive Director.
______
Old Spanish Trail Association,
Las Vegas, NM, April 2013.
Hon. Joe Manchin,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and
Mining, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Manchin and Barrasso:
I am writing in support of S.312, Carson National Forest Boundary
Adjustment Act, introduced by Senator Tom Udall and Senator Martin
Heinrich of New Mexico. As an interested citizen, I am personally
pleased that your Energy & Natural Resources Subcommittee is holding a
hearing on this most important piece of legislation, and I am hopeful
that the bill will move through committee and through the Senate as
quickly as possible.
Adjusting the boundaries of Carson National Forest to include the
5000-acre Miranda Canyon tract will help protect local water supplies,
preserve wildlife habitat, and ensure that this significant resource
will always be open to the public for healthful outdoor recreation-
tremendously important to all Americans.
Not only is the Miranda Canyon acquisition strongly supported by
the people of Taos and northern New Mexico, but by those of us who work
with the National Trails System and, especially, with the Old Spanish
Trail Association (OSTA).
Thank you for your favorable consideration of S.312.
Sincerely,
Reba Wells Grandrud.
______
Oregon Hunters Association,
Medford, OR, April 25, 2013.
Hon. Jon Manchin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
RE: Oregon Treasures
Dear Chairman Manchin and Senator Barrasso:
We are writing to express our strong support for S. 353, the Oregon
Treasures Act of 2013, which will provide our members with markedly
improved opportunities to hunt and boat along the John Day River, the
Rogue River, the Chetco River, and the Molalla River.
Oregon has always been a haven for outdoor enthusiasts who come
from far and wide to experience its wild rivers, high deserts, and
ancient forests. With the passage of legislation like the Oregon
Treasures Act, we will continue to draw visitors from all over the
world who come to enjoy the pristine nature of our watersheds and
protected public lands.
As hunters, we are especially excited about the consolidation of
public lands in Cathedral Rock and Horse Heaven. Due to a checkerboard
of public and private land, these areas have been virtually off-limits
to hunting for fear of trespass. Thanks to this legislation, we have
the opportunity to enjoy increased road access to an additional 1,661
acres of BLM lands and increased river access to 7,501 acres, thereby
doubling access to public lands, from 9,112 acres to 18,245 acres.
As boaters, we are looking forward to new protections along the
John Day, Rogue, Chetco, and Molalla Rivers that will offer enhanced
protection for fish habitat and some of our favorite river runs.
Passage of the Oregon Treasures Act will benefit Oregonians of
today and for many generations to come. Thank you for your continued
work to support this proposal, showing that securing places for people
to hunt and boat is an important public value for our state, our nation
and our future.
Sincerely,
John Crafton,
Redmond Chapter Secretary.
Thomas O'Keefe,
Pacific Northwest Stewardship Director, American Whitewater.
______
Statement of Joseph Gersen, Director of Government Relations, Public
Lands Service Coalition, on S. 360
On behalf of the Public Lands Service Coalition, I would like to
express our appreciation and support for S.360 and encourage the
committee to pass the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013. An
expanded Public Lands Service Corps will provide more opportunities for
thousands of young Americans to gain valuable workforce training and
career development while assisting our nation's land and water
management agencies to address critical restoration, maintenance, and
rehabilitation needs. Engaging young adults through the Public Lands
Service Corps will also help address billions of dollars in backlogged
maintenance needs on our nation's public lands and waters, address
youth unemployment, and prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next
generation of natural resource employees.
The Public Lands Service Coalition promotes youth service jobs and
career development on public/tribal lands and waters. Each year,
Coalition members engage more than 20,000 young people in jobs and
service opportunities, and they are poised to expand greatly to address
the record-high youth unemployment, the billions of dollars of
backlogged maintenance needs on public lands, the need for future
federal public lands employees, the national youth obesity epidemic,
and the disengagement of youth from the great American outdoors.
The Public Lands Service Coalition supports this legislation
because it will:
Increase the utilization of service and service learning as
a strategies for accomplishing work on our nation's public
lands and waters;
Introduce more young Americans to our nation's public lands
and waters--instilling in them an appreciation for nature, an
enjoyment of healthy recreation, and a sense of stewardship for
our natural resources and the environment;
Expand career development and workforce training
opportunities for Public Lands Service Corps members by
increasing non-competitive hiring status allowing more young
people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, the
ability to pursue careers in land and natural resource
management.
Raise the profile of the Public Lands Service Corps within
the relevant land and water management agencies making it
easier for conservation corps to participate and partner with
the federal government.
The History of the Corps Movement
The Civilian Conservation Corps employed six million young men
between 1933 and 1942 who planted nearly three billion trees and
constructed more than 800 parks. Subsequent federal efforts built on
the CCC model include Peace Corps (1961), Job Corps (1964), Youth
Conservation Corps (1971), Young Adult Conservation Corps (1977), and
AmeriCorps (1994). In addition, numerous state and non-profit groups
launched similar efforts beginning with Student Conservation
Association in 1957 and followed by the California Conservation Corps
in 1976. The Public Lands Service Corps Act builds on these recent
efforts by strengthening the ability of the federal government to
partner with these non-federal entities to meet national priorities.
The Corps Model
Experienced conservation corps programs engage thousands of young
people on public and tribal lands and waters each year. Operating in
all 50 states, these programs provide public and tribal land and water
managers with an effective and efficient way to complete necessary and
important projects and give young people opportunities to further their
education and improve their career prospects, while building the next
generation of land and water managers and resource stewards.
Each year, Corps complete hundreds of high-quality and often
technical projects on public lands and waters. Project sponsors
consistently express a high degree of satisfaction with the quality of
work and productivity of the Corps. Virtually all federal project
partners (99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps again. Types of
work include, but are not limited to:
Protecting wildlife and preserving public lands and waters
(ecological restoration);
Preparing communities for disasters and responding when
needed;
Enhancing recreation on public lands;
Protecting communities and public lands from the devastating
effects of wildfires;
Preserving historic structures;
Supporting individual placements and internships at the land
and water management agencies.
Cost Savings through Expanding Public Private Partnerships
Corps work with federal and land and water management partners on a
project based approach (conservation, restoration, and historic
preservation) with cooperative agreements. Implementing this
legislation will help stretch the budgets of land and water management
agencies, and will not require additional appropriations.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013 will help the land and
water management agencies achieve more with their current operating
budgets though partnerships with conservation corps. Research conducted
by the National Park Service's Park Facility Management Division in
2012 found that using Conservation Corps to complete maintenance and
trail projects provided a cost savings of over 50 percent. Further, it
is estimated that the cost of two professional level SCA interns, is
the same as one seasonal employee doing similar work. These public
private partnerships leverage federal investment by bringing at least a
25 percent match.
The Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2013 will be implemented, and
its goals achieved, without additional appropriations to the affected
land and water management agencies. PLC programs engaging conservation
corps in service on public lands are being paid for from within
existing agency appropriations, from recreation fees retained by the
agencies, and from charitable contributions. Utilizing existing
appropriations is possible because conservation corps complete work
that the agencies would be doing anyway with the appropriated funds,
primarily derived from maintenance and operating funds. Work projects
completed by conservation corps has the added advantage of requiring
fewer federal resources than if carried out by agency employees or
private contractors.
Conclusion
The Public Lands Service Corps Act would simultaneously address
youth unemployment, billions of dollars of backlogged maintenance needs
on our nation's public lands and waters while preparing a diverse group
of youth to be the next generation of natural resource employees.
Meanwhile, the Corpsmembers could, in turn, utilize their AmeriCorps
Education awards and the expanded non-competitive hiring authority
contained in this bill to pursue careers in land management-thus
building and diversifying the next generation of the resource
management workforce.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. On behalf
of the entire Public Lands Service Coalition, I again want to express
our appreciation and support for S.360. We look forward to working with
you to see it enacted into law.
Coalition Members
Backcountry Horsemen of America
Calif. Assn of Local Conservation Corps
California Conservation Corps
Campfire USA
Canyon Country Youth Corps
Citizens Conservation Corps of West Virginia
Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy, Inc
Coconino Rural Environment Corps
Colorado Youth Corps Association
Conservation Corps Minnesota and Iowa
EarthCorps
Greater Miami Service Corps
Groundwork USA
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
Montana Conservation Corps
National Congress of American Indians
National Parks Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
Nevada Conservation Corps
Northwest Youth Corps
Operation Fresh Start
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (CO)
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (NM)
Sequoia Community Corps
Sierra Club
Southeast Alaska Guidance Association
Southwest Conservation Corps
Student Conservation Association
Texas Conservation Corps
The Corps Network
The Wellness Coalition
The Wilderness Society
The Y
Utah Conservation Corps
Vermont Youth Conservation Corps
Veterans Green Jobs
Washington Conservation Corps
______
Rogue River,
Merlin, OR, April 24, 2013.
Hon. Joe Manchin,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Manchin and Senator Barrasso:
We the undersigned are rafting and fishing guide services that
operate on the Rogue River in the southwestern corner of Oregon. The
Rogue River is essential to our livelihood and our employee's
livelihood also. The Rogue River is an iconic place with cultural,
historical and ecological values. We are writing to strongly encourage
you to advance S.353, The Oregon Treasures Act of 2013, in this 113th
Congress to protect our business interests and the resource we depend
on.
Over the years, both the fishing and rafting industry on the Rogue
have grown to become a cornerstone of the recreation economy in
southwestern Oregon. A recent economic study by ECONorthwest determined
that rafting, fishing and other recreation along the Rogue generate $30
million annually in economic output statewide, including 445 jobs.
Locally this includes economic impacts of approximately $16 million in
Josephine County, OR, alone. This study doesn't include other
activities that vacationers may participate in and spend money on
during their visits to southwestern Oregon. Often these vacations are
planned around their Rogue fishing or rafting trip with other area
local attractions benefitting from our world renowned river.
One reason our businesses are able to invest in our operations and
plan for the future is due to the existing federal protections for
portions of the Rogue. In fact, recreation began to blossom in the area
after the Rogue was designated as Wild and Scenic in 1968. While these
protections are helpful over half of the well-known and most popular
section of the river does not have any federal protection outside of
the narrow Wild and Scenic corridor.
Timber sales have targeted this area in the past, and while most of
us agree that timber harvest can be appropriate in some areas this just
isn't the right place. Logging would harm the views of old-growth
forest that our trips are known for. Even when a timber harvest cannot
be seen it can still affect our businesses as it can degrade water
quality. The tributaries to the Rogue provide clear, cold spawning and
rearing habitat and respite for salmon and other fish migrating
upstream. Logging in this area would likely degrade both the ecological
benefits the area provides and tarnish the reputation of the area.
Swimming in these cold streams on a warm summer day is a favorite
pastime of our thousands of visitors and maintaining a healthy fish
population is essential for our future fishing customers.
For our businesses to thrive, we need the security of knowing that
the river will be protected into the future. Increasing the area
protected to include the popular and well known wild stretch of the
Rogue will help us feel secure in making investments in our business
including advertising both our trips and the region as a great tourism
destination. When you look at a map it is clear that this type of
protection should have been done a long time ago and we are fortunate
the opportunity still exists. A place as iconic as the Wild Rogue
deserves our nation's best protections and we ask that you do this for
our businesses, the next generation of whitewater, hiking and fishing
enthusiasts and for our country.
Sincerely,
ECHO River Trips,
Momentum River Expeditions
Orange Torpedo Trips
Northwest Rafting Company
Ferron's Fun Trips
All Star Rafting
Sundance Kayak School
Morrison's Rogue River Lodge
Rogue River Raft trips
Rogue Wilderness Adventures
ARTA River Trips
Rogue Canyon Adventures
______
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council,
Juneau, AK, April 24, 2013.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 340, the Sealaska Bill
Dear Senator Murkowski:
In our last letter to you, we endorsed the responsible approach
reflected in your February 2013 re-introduction of the Sealaska lands
bill. We expressed our appreciation for the flexibility and leadership
you showed in your response to community needs and stakeholder
concerns. We also informed you that S.340 was not perfect from our
point of view.
Ongoing discussions between local stakeholders, the Forest Service,
and a more inoovative segment of the Tongass timber industry are
complicated by the uncertainties associated with young growth
management. While young growth management will not be a panacea for all
timber management controversies, most of the involved stakeholders see
the benefits from working together to develop economically viable
solutions for restoring fish and wildlife habitat and developing local
markets for new wood products. Like the Forest Service, involved
stakeholders need some space for innovation and trial and error. For
this reason, we hope the remaining outstanding issues with S.340 do not
hamstring effort by the Forest Service or Tongass stakeholders to
develop solutions that can work in the real world.
While we share some of your apprehension over the Forest Service's
implementation of its Southeast Alaska Transition Strategy, we applaud
the agency's willingness to confront new realities, such as permanent
and fundamental changes in world timber markets and the insoluble
problems associated with high Tongass production costs and distance
from markets. The Forest Service is trying to adapt its existing timber
program to reflect these market realities, as well as changes in demand
and need for renewable forest resources here in Southeast Alaska. We
are participating in ongoing and thoughtful discussions with diverse
interests on what next steps to take to create an integrated wood
product and forest service industry on the Tongass for the 21st
Century. The Southeast Alaska Transition Strategy is as an important
part of the solution for addressing long-tetm community needs on the
Tongass.
For us, the Tongass Transition is just the latest expression of a
common-sense approach that we have long advocated for. Over 15 years
ago, SEACC teamed up with small-scale timber operators, communities,
and the U.S. Forest Service to create an innovative approach to logging
on the southern end of the Tongass National Forest. Today, the
Microsale Timber Program (Alaskan wood--Alaskan jobs) provides small
mill operators on Prince of Wales Island with small quantities of dead
or down trees near the existing road system. The program encourages
local processing and the manufacture of high value-added wood products.
This approach produces more job hours per tree cut and higher stumpage
returns than the Forest Service's traditional timber program. Even
better, this success does not come at the expense of a mill owner's
neighbors having to sacrifice their diverse uses on the Tongass
National Forest.
More recently, SEACC started our ``Buy Local: Alaskan Wood, Alaskan
Jobs'' marketing program with small-scale mills on the Tongass. Our
program is the first effort organized in the region to help these local
businesses develop local markets for their wood products.
As the Sealaska bill moves forward, we respectfully request you
consider the following:
Expanded Calder Parcel--We understand that the Calder parcel on
North Prince of Wales was expanded nearly 3,000 acres to make up for
reductions in other targeted timber tracts. While we realize the
difficulties in any additional modification to parcel boundaries,
roughly 500 acres of the expanded parcel encompasses the end of the
existing Forest Road 2900 . . . A primary reason the communities of
Port Protection and Point Baker continue to object to this legislation
is because they fear Sealaska will connect this road with the existing
Calder road network and use Labouchere Bay (Lab Bay) instead of Calder
Bay for log storage and transfer. Such use would interfere with these
communities' use of the productive Lab Bay and reverse the ongoing
recovery of this waterbody after decades of intensive use by Ketchikan
Pulp Company. We intend to raise this issue with Sealaska and hope we
can come up with a solution that works for everyone. At this point, we
have identified two (2) options for consideration:
Drop that portion of the Calder Parcel that is isolated from
the existing road network in Calder (about 500 acres); or
Obtain Sealaska's agreement not to use Lab Bay for log
storage and transfer from development on its lands.
Conservation--While we appreciate your willingness to conserve
important Tongass wildlands in this legislation, we offer a couple of
recmmnendations.
Honker Divide-The Honker Divide is the largest remaining
unlogged and unroaded area on Prince of Wales Island-an
interconnected chain oflakes and rivers stretching 36 miles
from saltwater to saltwater, from Thome Bay to Coffman Cove.
Its combination of low elevation topography, extensive stream
and lake systems, and wetlands provide an extraordinary
diversity offish and wildlife. The Alaska Department ofFish and
Game has long recognized the Honker Divide as one of only 19
``high quality'' sport fish watersheds in Southeast Alaska. In
1997, the Forest Service recommended designating 24 miles as a
``scenic'' river and the remaining 18 miles as a
``recreational'' river under the Wild and Scenic River Act in
order to protect the area's outstandingly remarkable values for
future generations.
We are concerned that the proposed LUD II's 16,684 acres does not
even encompass the entire 25,480 acre river corridor recommended for
designation in 1997. Please expand the LUD II boundary to encompass all
of the Honker Divide-``ridge top to ridge top''--an area encompassing
approximately 92,629 acres, less than 35 percent of which (+32,000
acres) are within the current timber base.
Western Kosciusko--The proposed LUD II appears to encompass
most of the Kosciusko Island Geological Area, designated as a
Special Interest Area in the 2008 TLMP. The proposed
designation appears to miss the Badder Ladder cave (between the
loops of the road), and the ``super karsty'' slopes below the
summit of Mmmt Francis. We recommend expanding this LUD II to
include the remainder of this designated geological Special
Interest Area (sections 10, 11, and 15 directly west of the
proposed LUD II). This expansion will have no effect on the
Tongass timber base because the 2008 TLMP classifies all lands
allocated to the Special Interest Area as unsuitable for timber
production.
Northern Prince of Wales--Similar to the proposed Western
Kosciusko LUD II, it looks like the largest western block of
the proposed LUD II does not contain all the lands designated
as geologic Special Interest Area in the 2008 TLMP. Since these
lands are already excluded from the timber base, we recmmnend
expanding the northern boundary of the largest block of the
proposed LUD II to encompass the entire Special Interest Area .
designated in the 2008 TLMP.
Public Access to Salmon Streams--Section 5(g) of S.340 proposes to
grant an easement 25 feet wide on either side of a Class I stream for
public access. As a practical matter, we recmmnend expanding the
easement to 100 feet on either side of Class I streams and those Class
II streams that flow into Class I streams. We offer this practical
suggestion to facilitate safe movement up and down the streams by
fishermen.
Thank you for your careful attention to these matters. Please
incorporate our letter into the record for the Committee's April 25,
2013 hearing on S.340.
Best Regards,
Lindsey Ketchel,
Executive Director.
______
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council,
Juneau, AK, April 22, 2013.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 221 Dirksen Senate
Office Bldg., Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 709 Hart Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for the Subsistence Structure Protection Act of 2013 (S.
736)
Dear Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski, Please accept
this letter from the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC)
expressing support for the Subsistence Structure Protection Act of 2013
(S.736).
Subsistence-or customary and traditional use, as many prefer to
call it-plays an extremely important role for many Southeast Alaskans.
For most rural families, much if not most of a family's food comes from
fish, game, and other wild sources. In smaller communities where things
like gas, heating oil, and groceries are already many times more
expensive than they are in the lower 48, subsistence is more than a
lifestyle- it's a necessity. In addition, harvesting, preparation, and
eating wild foods is of special value to Alaska Natives, who have
harvested from these lands since time inunemorial, and for whom
customary and traditional use plays an integral cultural and spiritual
role.
Since 2010, SEACC has been working with Southeast Alaskan
subsistence users in an effort to lower the fees the Forest Service
charges annually rural residents for personal use cabins on National
Forest land. These cabins are often Native-owned, and in most cases,
were built generations ago by the same families who own them today for
the purpose of harvesting and processing customary and traditional
foods, such as salmon, halibut, seal, deer, moose, shellfish, seaweed,
and benies. In the generations since these cabins were built, for those
families that have access to them, the cabins have become just as
impmiant a subsistence tool as the rifle, the seine, or the gaff.
In recent years, the Forest Service has substantially increased the
annual fee it charges these cabin owners. Now around $900 per year, the
fees threaten to put families living in relatively cash-poor
subsistence economies in the impossible position of having to choose
between certain basic necessities on the one hand, and access to food,
culture, and tradition on the other. Particularly upsetting to many of
the cabin owners affected, the fees are no less than what the Forest
Service charges numerous other users- including mining companies,
guides/outfitters, and academic institutions- for use of similar
shelters on federal land. For many, as a result of the long and
traumatic history surrounding Native-owned subsistence structures on
the Tongass, these conflicts run especially deep.
Two years ago, SEACC submitted a memo to Forest Service Region 10
urging the agency to substantially reduce the fees it charges these
cabin owners. In the time since--which has included two billing cycles,
representing over $1700 per family in special use fees-no categorical
reduction was made in the fees being charged subsistence users, and
SEACC began to seek other solutions. We are grateful that Sen.
Murkowski has taken the issue on. In our efforts to support this
legislation, we have had numerous conversations with Forest Service
employees in hopes of ensuring that the legislation protects
subsistence users, without creating undue hardship for the agency. The
$250 yearly fee is based on the Forest Service's estimate that the
annual per-cabin cost for administering the special use permit system
is no more than $200. The $250 flat fee is also in accordance with the
preference the agency expressed for pre-determined flat fees, rather
than general amounts (e.g., ``a fee not to exceed the per-cabin cost of
administering the program''). Similarly, the $15,000 income cut-off for
those subsistence users who primarily use their cabins for subsistence
purposes, but also use their cabins for occasional micro-scale
commercial fishing, is the product of conversations with Region 10 in
combination with research from the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G).
We greatly appreciate Ranking Member Murkowski's leadership on this
issue. We are grateful to Chairman Wyden and the Committee for taking
this on, and extremely hopeful that the Subsistence Structure
Protection Act will succeed, for the benefit of Alaska's mral
subsistence users.
Sincerely,
Lindsey Kitchel,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of the Sierra Club, on S. 340
The Sierra Club appreciates the Subcommittee's invitation to
comment on S. 340 for the hearing record. We have long been involved in
major Tongass National Forest management issues, including the massive
Admiralty Island timber sale of the 1960's; designation of Tongass
wilderness areas in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
of 1980; the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990; Forest Service timber
sales; and the agency's forest-wide Land and Resource Management plans.
We support finalization of Sealaska Corporation's land selections,
a process that will complete the corporation's land entitlement under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). We testified in
support of the Alaska Land Transfer and Acceleration Act of 2004
(ALTAA), legislation sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski, which
expedites final conveyances of Native corporation and State of Alaska
land selections.
However, we oppose S. 340. This bill would in effect amend ANCSA to
authorize Sealaska selections of approximately 70,000 acres from areas
of the Tongass outside the areas withdrawn in ANCSA for Sealaska's
selections. From within these original withdrawals-the eight townships
surrounding each of the village core townships-Sealaska has title to
more than 290,000 acres and has prioritized selection of its remaining
70,000 acres as required by ALTAA.
But instead of accepting title to its remaining acreage, Sealaska
asked the Bureau of Land Management to put final conveyance on hold
while the corporation seeks Congress's approval of S. 340 that would
allow it take the acreage from other areas of the Tongass.
Sealaska's proposed new selections
Sealaska's proposed alternative selections, 18 in all throughout
the Tongass, include stands of high-volume old-growth on Prince of
Wales Island, Kuiu Island, Kosciusko Island, and the Cleveland
Peninsula. Keete Inlet on Prince of Wales Island, North Kuiu Island
(Security Bay), McKenzie Inlet and Calder Bay on Prince of Wales
Island, contain some of the most valuable old growth stands and fish
and wildlife habitats in the Tongass.
In response, the residents of nine small communities on Prince of
Wales and Kosciusko are vigorously opposing S. 340. Sealaska seeks to
log in watersheds that encompass major salmon streams that sustain the
region's commercial and subsistence fisheries. Residents also rely on
this old growth forest habitat for their subsistence hunting, fishing,
and trapping, and for recreation.
Sealaska's proposed move into this general area would also
adversely affect the interests of other forest users who rely on intact
old growth forest-sport hunters and anglers, sport fishing/hunting
lodge owners, independent hunting, fishing, and wildlife tour guides,
tour companies, and Alaskans and out-of-state visitors coming to view
outstanding wildlife and scenery in natural, undeveloped settings.
The potential economic effect of S. 340 is described by retired
Forest Service economist Joe Merhkens in an op-ed for the Sit News of
Sitka Alaska.
Sealaska's exchange is a value-for-value trade. Simply
stated, Sealaska Corp. wants to exchange lower quality uncut
old-growth for much higher quality old-growth on Prince of
Wales Island. Sealaska claims the proposed exchange is a value-
for-value trade--especially in terms of wildlife habitat.
Unfortunately, there are no publicly available timber
appraisals available to evaluate the proposed timber trade.
However, there are two proxies for value-to-value comparisons.
Based on the presence of big trees, Sealaska is getting a ten-
fold increase in big tree values. Likewise, using comparative
wildlife habitat measures, Sealaska will log habitat that is
3.5 times more valuable than what they are returning to the
public. Granted these proxies may be somewhat subjective, but
even if they are off by 200 percent, Sealaska Corp. still gains
much higher timber values and the public is left with lower-
quality habitat. The real issue is that Sealaska quickly
liquidated their old-growth and now is looking for a second
bite of the apple. Sealaska Corp. is simply angling for a
windfall benefit and a benefit that may never trickle down to
shareholders. Past Sealaska/village corporation logging has
certainly left villages like Kake and Hoonah high and dry.
Moreover, there is absolutely no justification for this
windfall to Sealaska Corp. when it comes at the expense of
small communities, sportsmen, tourism operators and commercial
fishers.
Forest Service's transition to second-growth forestry
The centerpiece of the current Forest Plan is a transition from old
growth logging to utilization of second growth stands as the agency
moves away from commercial timber sales to support for tourism,
wildlife habitat, protection of subsistence resources and other
industries and activities that depend on the presence of old growth
forest and unimpaired fish streams.
In April 25, 2013 testimony on S. 340, Associate Deputy Chief of
the Forest Service James M. Pena stated that if Sealaska's proposed new
selections are approved, there would be less timber available for
supplying local mills during the transition, and hence this could delay
the transition beyond 15-20 years. Mr. Pena was not asked to estimate
the length of the delay.
Interference with the transition plan, which enjoys widespread
support in SE Alaska and the nation, is not in the public interest.
Conservation Areas
S. 340 would establish eight new ``conservation areas'' consisting
of Land Use Designation II (LUD II) areas totaling 152,000 acres. LUD
11 is a Forest Service land classification that prohibits commercial
logging while accommodating a host of other uses and developments.
LUD II designation provides inadequate protection for the full
range of nationally significant resources and values of the eight areas
proposed in S. 340. Uses and developments available under LUD II
designation are listed in the current Forest Plan:
Salvage logging only to prevent significant damage to other
resources;
Personal use of wood for cabin logs, fuel wood, float logs,
trolling poles, etc.;
Water and power development if designed to be compatible
with the primitive characteristics of the area;
Roads only for access to authorized uses, transportation
needs identified by the State, or vital linkages;
Mineral development;
Access by boats, aircraft, and snowmachines unless such uses
become excessive;
Primitive recreational facilities; and
Major concentrated recreational facilities generally
excluded.
Thus the claim that S. 340 would create ``conservation areas'' is
misleading. Despite the prohibition on commercial logging, the bill's
eight proposed LUD II areas would be subject to the above uses and
developments that over time would render these areas ineligible for
potential addition to the wilderness and wild and scenic river systems.
A coalition of environmental groups including the Sierra Club has
proposed the eight LUD II's of S. 340 for addition to the National
Wilderness Preservation System or the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
These areas are currently administratively-designated ``roadless''
units, an interim protective status that preserves Congress's options
for deciding the appropriate statutory protection for the areas.
In any event, LUD II designation in S. 340 is not germane. We urge
the Subcommittee to consider the ultimate disposition of the eight
proposed LUD II's and other roadless areas on the Tongass in separate
legislation.
S. 340 as precedent
In testimony on a previous version of the Sealaska bill in the
112th Congress, the Interior Department's witness observed that the
bill, if it became law, might encourage other regional corporations to
ask Congress for similar treatment.
At the April 25 Subcommittee hearing, the Interior Department
reaffirmed its position when Sen. Murkowski pressed the Department's
witness, Jamie Connell, Acting Deputy Director of the BLM, to concede
that S. 340 would not establish a precedent, given that the other
regional corporations have assured her that they would not ask Congress
to allow major changes to their existing land holdings. But Ms. Connell
would not give Sen. Murkowski an ``absolute'' that a precedent would
not be created if S. 340 is enacted into law. Nor would the Department
in its written statement:
We note that if S. 340 is enacted other corporations might
seek similar legislation for the substitution of new lands. In
addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service notes that if S.
340 is enacted as proposed and the Tongass Forest Management
Plan is modified, the Service may have to review its findings
not to list the southeast Alaska distinct population segment
(DPS) of Queen Charlotte goshawk and the Alexander Archipelago
wolf.
We agree with the Department on the possibility that a precedent
could be set if S. 340 is enacted. Regional corporations, especially
those that have some land with little or no economic development
potential, could ask Congress for permission to move existing holdings
into other federal lands.
Conclusion
There is no justification for S. 340. Sealaska can take title to
its remaining 70,000 acres within its original withdrawal areas at any
time of its choosing. We recommend that the Subcommittee urge the
corporation to proceed with final conveyance.
In the absence of S. 340 and with its entitlement complete,
Sealaska would be free to explore land exchanges with the Forest
Service. In the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980
Congress provided for land exchanges between federal, state, Native,
and private land owners. Since then several exchanges have taken place
between Native corporations and the federal government.
In summary, we recommend that the Subcommittee take no further
action on S. 340. If this bill were to become law, it would impede the
Forest Service's planned phase-out of old growth-growth logging, damage
nationally significant fish and wildlife resources and natural values
of the Tongass, threaten the livelihoods of local residents and other
forest users, and set an undesirable precedent.
______
Statement of Robert Skinner, President, Skinner Ranches Inc., Board
Member, Public Lands Council, on S. 258
Chairman Manchin, Ranking Minority Member Barrasso and Members of
the Subcommittee:
My name is Robert Skinner. I am a cattle rancher from Jordan
Valley, Oregon, testifying today on behalf of the Public Lands Council
(PLC), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), and the Oregon
Cattlemen's Association (OCA). I serve on PLC's Board of Directors, am
past president of OCA, and am a longstanding NCBA member. My
grandchildren are the seventh generation to live and work on the ranch
I own and operate. I am deeply committed to our way of life and our
important job of providing food and fiber to a growing nation and
world. As such, I appreciate the opportunity to share with the
Subcommittee my and the livestock industry's strong support for S. 258,
the Grazing Improvement Act.
PLC is the only National organization dedicated solely to
representing public land ranchers. Affiliates of PLC include not only
NCBA but also the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI), the
Association of National Grasslands (ANG) and sheep and cattle
organizations from twelve western states. PLC represents the roughly
22,000 ranchers who own nearly 120 million acres and manage more than
250 million acres of federal land. NCBA is the nation's oldest and
largest national trade association for cattlemen and women,
representing more than 140,000 cattle producers through direct
membership and their state affiliates. Like PLC, NCBA is producer-
directed and works to preserve the heritage and strength of the
industry by providing a stable business environment for its members.
OCA has worked for Oregon's cattlemen for over a hundred years to
promote environmentally and socially sound industry practices, improve
and strengthen the economics of the industry, and protect industry
communities, producers and private property rights.
We thank Senator Barrasso, Chairman Manchin, and this Subcommittee
for leading the way on the Grazing Improvement Act, legislation that is
of crucial importance to the public lands livestock grazing industry
and that has bipartisan support. This legislation passed the House of
Representatives last session as part of the Conservation and Economic
Growth Act (H.R. 2578). We look forward to working with you to achieve
passage of S. 258 in the Senate.
The public land livestock industry seeks and supports the essential
legislative changes provided by S. 258, as they are essential steps in
restoring a stable business environment to our industry. By allowing
for grazing permit renewals despite agency National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) backlogs, extending the life of grazing permits, and
categorically exempting certain qualified permits from NEPA review, S.
258 will provide environmental, economic, and government cost-saving
benefits.
Environmental Benefits of a Stable Public Lands Grazing Industry
Livestock grazing represents the earliest use of the land and
resources as our nation expanded westward. Today it continues on now-
federally managed land as a multiple-use that is essential to the
livestock industry, wildlife habitat, open space and the vitality of
many western rural communities. While grazing was historically viewed
only as a ``use'' of the public lands, today it has also come to be
recognized as an important ``tool'' for the management of these lands
and the resources.
Greater business stability leads to grazing practices that better
benefit the resources, allowing federal lands ranchers to think long-
term about the kind of land and resources they want to pass down to the
next generation. This stability is also at the foundation of the
evolving science of rangeland management. By implementing long-term
plans, ranchers are able to bring about significant changes in forage
composition, to the benefit of livestock and wildlife alike.
Sophisticated analytical systems, such as the State and Transition
Model (STM), which has been embraced in recent years by both BLM and
USFS, allow livestock grazing to be utilized to bring about significant
changes in forage composition over long periods of time. But without
the assurance that they will be able to hold onto their permits, many
ranchers are hesitant to make the commitment of resources it takes to
implement such plans.
Accompanying the recent advances in range science are the
longstanding benefits of grazing, which will only be bolstered by
better business certainty. Wildlife depend on the habitat and range
improvements provided by public land ranching. The improvements
ranchers make to water sources--building, maintaining and protecting
reservoirs and stock ponds, for example--can improve and, in some
cases, create, wildlife habitats.\1\ In the West, where productive,
private lands are interspersed with large areas of arid, less desirable
public lands, biodiversity of species depends greatly on ranchland.
According to Rick Knight, a biology professor at Colorado State
University, ranching on both public and private land ``has been found
to support biodiversity that is of conservation concern'' because it
``encompasses large amounts of land with low human densities, and
because it alters native vegetation in modest ways.''\2\ Knight also
noted that other uses--such as outdoor recreation and residential use--
are not as conducive to the support of threatened or endangered
species.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://cesantaclara.ucdavis.edu/files/33367.pdf
\2\ ``Ranchers as a Keystone Species in a West that Works.''
Richard L. Knight. Rangelands Oct. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wild birds, animals and rodents seek out and thrive in the shelter
and open spaces provided by natural ranch features, like diverse plant
cover and windbreaks, as opposed to row crops or bare landscapes. Many
ranchers across the West are purposefully implementing grazing
practices to improve habitat and help prevent the addition of species
such as the Greater Sage-grouse (GSG) to the Endangered Species List.
(According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, ranchers
have, among other efforts, invested approximately $70 million in GSG
conservation efforts and instituted improved grazing systems on over 2
million acres over that past three years, which is expected to increase
GSG populations by 8 to 10 percent.\3\) Not only does well- managed
grazing encourage healthy root systems and robust forage growth, it
also reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire.\4\ Large animals such
as elk and deer are known to thrive in areas where cattle graze.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA (2013). Sage
Grouse Initiative: Tracking Success. Report. http://
static.sagegrouseinitiative.com/sites/default/files/sgi-
tracking__success-final__low__res-020613.pdf
\4\ Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA (2004).
Environmental Benefits of Improved Grazing Management. Illini
PastureNet Papers. Hendershot, R.
\5\ Texas A&M University-Kingsville (2005). Cattle Management to
Enhance Wildlife Habitat in South Texas. Wildlife Management Bulletin
of the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Management Bulletin
No. 6, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other research suggests that livestock grazing helps prevent
invasion by non-native grasses, which threaten plant biodiversity on
the land.\6\ Ranchers' brush control also benefits wildlife, helping
more grass to take root and decreasing the spread of cheatgrass, a
highly flammable invasive weed. A study in the Journal of Rangeland
Management concluded that ``from an ecological standpoint we can argue
that if we remove the grazing infrastructure from public rangelands, we
would see some adverse consequences. We'd see less variety and too much
ground cover, for example, as well as more cheatgrass and the potential
for more range fires.''\7\ Oregon experienced the worst wildfire season
in recorded history last summer. The lack of land managers' ability to
use practices such as grazing to reduce fuels, along with the extreme
fire conditions and behavior, all combined to create this disaster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ranching as a Conservation Strategy: Can Old Ranchers Save the
New West? Mark W. Brunson and Lynn Huntsinger. Rangeland Ecology
Management 61:127-147 March 2008.
\7\ ``Vegetation Change after 65 Years of Grazing and Grazing
Exclusion.'' Barry Perryman. Journal of Rangeland Management Dec. 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study by Mark W. Brunson and Lynn Huntsinger published in the
journal Rangeland Ecology Management explained that ``Saving ranches
has become a focus not only of rural traditionalists and livestock
producers but also of conservationists, who prefer ranching as a land
use over exurban subdivisions.''\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ranching as a Conservation Strategy: Can Old Ranchers Save the
New West? Mark W. Brunson and Lynn Huntsinger. Rangeland Ecology
Management 61:127-147 March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Benefits of a Stable Public Lands Grazing Industry
Meanwhile, countless communities across the West depend upon the
continued existence of ranchers who hold public land grazing permits.
Many communities across the West, where public lands account for
roughly half of the landmass, depend just as we do on the tax base,
commerce, and jobs created by the public land grazing industry.
Indeed, the national-level statistics give light to the importance
of public lands grazing. The latest available data show that there were
over 8.9 million animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing authorized on BLM
lands in 2012. This grazing was administered through roughly 18,000
permits and leases.\9\ In 2008 (latest available data), the USFS issued
more than 8,000 permits in the fifteen western, representing roughly
6.9 million AUMs.\10\ While false data is often cited showing the
relatively small amount of beef or lamb that is produced on public
lands, such statements ignore the importance of these lands in an
integrated ranching operation. Approximately 40 percent of beef cattle
in the West and half of the nation's sheep spend some time on federal
lands. Without public land grazing, the cattle and sheep industries
would be dramatically downsized, threatening infrastructure and the
entire market structure. Certainly, with the national cattle herd size
at its lowest level for 60 years-and trending downward- losing our
western producers would have a destabilizing effect on the U.S. food
supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fact Sheet on BLM Management of Livestock Grazing, February
2013. Available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html.
\10\ USDA--USFS, Annual Grazing Statistical Report, Grazing Season
2009
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of great importance to the economic viability of many western
ranches is the stability of the federal lands grazing permits
associated with the private base property. These permits are a value
property interest of the ranchers who hold them. They represent a
rancher's ``grazing preference,'' which is exclusive, taxed, included
in a ranch's deed, transferrable, and the subject of equitable
protection (all attributes of a property right)\13\. Congress passed
the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, which led to the establishment of
grazing allotments, giving preference rights to forage to ranchers who
had a history of using the range and who owned private ``base''
property nearby. Grazing permits (much like building permits or water
permits) are the mechanism through which this grazing preference right
is administered. In order to ensure the continuation of the
environmental and economic benefits of grazing, this valuable property
interest, granted protection under the law, must be defended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Right to Graze Livestock on the Federal Lands: The
Historical Development of Western Grazing Rights, Idaho Law Review,
Spring, 1994
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenges to the Industry
Despite the broadening acclaim for public lands livestock grazing's
environmental and economic benefits, today's public land livestock
industry faces challenges unlike ever before, making the aforementioned
goals of a stable business environment and long-term grazing plans
increasingly difficult to achieve. Private ranchland values in the west
have skyrocketed based on competing uses-primarily rural subdivision
development. Increasing land values render the estate tax a bigger
threat than ever, making succession planning an ominous prospect for
future generations of ranching families. Enhanced livestock genetics
and current market prices for sheep and cattle have combined with the
rising land prices to dramatically increase the need for operating
capital-and at the same time, agricultural lenders are demanding
greater long-term certainty in livestock operations. Burgeoning
government regulation and the resulting litigation demand ever-greater
investment of both financial and human resources. Extreme, predatory
``environmental'' groups wage a constant, partly taxpayer-funded war
against public lands grazing.\11\ Together, these and other factors
create a business environment that is less stable than ever.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Budd Falen, K. (2005). Environmental Organization's use of
NEPA to Eliminate Land Use and Obtain Attorneys' Fees Under the EAJA.
Legal Memorandum, November, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding to the uncertainty is the changed nature of the grazing
permit renewal process. In the 1960s, renewal of term grazing permits
every ten years on both BLM and USFS lands was little more than an
administrative exercise. The permit renewal routinely arrived in the
mail it was signed and returned to the agency for final execution,
completing the renewal process. Any on- the-ground issues regarding
management were addressed during the many opportunities that the agency
range personnel and I had to spend time together in the field.
Today, permit renewals are subject to compatibility with a Resource
Management Plan or Land Use Plan, prior environmental analysis under
the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), a potential need for
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the
likely appeal by an anti-grazing organization that has been granted
``interested public'' status by the agency and standing by the courts.
The opportunities that our members once appreciated to spend time in
the field with range personnel have become scarce as agency personnel
are inundated by process, Freedom of Information Act requests and
endless appeals. The NEPA analysis now deemed necessary is seldom
completed in a timely manner. As a result, ranchers with public land
grazing permits have, for the past ten years, been at the mercy of the
annual congressional appropriations rider to allow permits to be
renewed in a timely manner. S. 258 would alleviate this annual
cliffhanger, codifying language that has been approved annually by
Congress for over a decade.
Challenges Facing the Federal Land Management Agencies
As noted above, new regulations and resulting litigation have added
dramatically to agency workloads. Over the past decade, the agencies
have operated under pressure to produce environmental analyses on
permit renewals either under a schedule imposed by Congress, or under
self-imposed schedules. These timelines have seldom been met. Last
year, the NEPA backlogs impacting permit renewals amounted to 4,200 and
2,700 for the BLM and USFS, respectively. The backlogs continue to
exist, with no end in sight. Time pressures have led to NEPA analysis
that is frequently either substantively or procedurally inadequate and
is therefore subject to successful administrative and judicial
challenge. Reducing the requirement for perfunctory environmental
analysis, as S. 258 proposes to do, would enable the agencies to be
more thorough when analyzing actions that actually impact the resource.
It would also help reduce the opportunity for litigation by extreme
anti-grazing groups who, by virtue of fee- shifting statutes such as
the Equal Access to Justice Act, have made a cottage industry out of
process-based litigation, draining agency budgets and reaping taxpayer
dollars to the tune of millions, annually.
S. 258 Offers Solutions
As noted above, proper range management, economic certainty at the
individual, community, and west-wide levels, land management agency
workloads, and taxpayers would all benefit from a longer-term approach
to the permitting of public lands grazing. S. 258 takes a sizeable step
in that direction.
Section 2 of the bill extends the life of grazing permits from 10
to 20 years. This critical change will bring needed certainty, improved
range management and greater agency efficiency. In the context of this
change to a 20 year permit, it is important to note that the ability of
the agency to make needed management adjustments through the annual
authorization to graze (BLM) or annual operating plan (USFS) is not
diminished. In addition, the agencies retain the authority to issue
shorter term permits under special conditions. Lengthening term grazing
permits from 10 to 20 years provides more certainty to permittees and
reduces process burdens on the land management agencies, all while
retaining current standards for adjusting on-the-ground practices.
Section 3--As referenced above, federal lands ranchers have relied
for more than a decade on language being included into annual
appropriations bills to allow the agencies to renew grazing permits on
federal lands under current terms and conditions until the renewal
process is complete. S. 258 would codify that language. The bill
recognizes that the renewal, reissuance or transfer of a permit does
not, per se, have a resource impact so long as there is no significant
change in the grazing management. By categorically excluding these
actions from the requirement to prepare an environmental analysis, this
section restores the role of environmental analysis to its proper
function-an analysis of the potential impacts of a commitment of
resources (changes to an RMP or Forest Plan) or a significant new on-
the-ground activity. This section also takes a practical approach by
properly acknowledging that minor modifications to renewed, reissued or
transferred permits are acceptable, so long as they do not interfere
with the achievement of or progress toward land and resource management
plan objectives, and so long as extraordinary circumstances do not
indicate a need for further analysis. Additionally, in order to solve a
problem with crossing permits we have seen in my home state of Oregon,
S. 258 would correctly exclude the issuance of crossing and trailing
permits from NEPA analysis. There is no need for endless analysis of an
activity with minimal impact which takes place in an effort to comply
with the terms and conditions of underlying term grazing permits.
Taken together, Sections 2 and 3 represent a major step toward
returning the focus of public land grazing to on-the-ground activities
including management plans and range improvements. The resource, the
land management agencies and the grazing permittees-and thus,
ultimately, the local and national economies-all stand to benefit from
these adjustments. Entities that oppose these commonsense provisions
show their true intensions: removal of all livestock from public lands
with no real interest in the health of the natural resources or the
economy.
Conclusion
All but the most extreme opponents of public lands grazing
acknowledge that the continuation of grazing on public lands is
essential to maintaining the integrity of landscapes in the West. Given
the mosaic pattern of land ownership in most public land areas, a
majority of ranches in these areas are not economically viable ranching
operations without access to forage on public lands. These associated
intermingled private lands will often readily find a market as rural
subdivisions and other non-agricultural uses. The resulting land
fragmentation equates to a loss of wildlife habitat, open space and
scenic vistas, and public access. This can diminish the value of the
public lands themselves for recreational use. Keeping ranchers in
business is good policy for conservation of both private and public
land.
Most public land ranchers do not want to develop their private
lands. It is not in the public interest to drive them to do so by
increasing the uncertainly that they face in continuing public lands
ranching. Over the past 10 years, many states have seen an increase in
the use of conservation easements. The primary reason for doing so is
to provide another tool to keep private ranchlands in ranching.
However, as we visit with public land ranchers, we often hear, ``I
would be very interested in placing an easement on my private land if
my grazing permit were more secure. If I lose the permit, I will have
little choice but to subdivide my land.''
There are certain times when small steps can produce large results.
In S. 258, Senator Barrasso takes those small steps. The results will
include greater stability for the livestock industry, a renewed focus
on long-term resource management, enhanced agency efficiency and
flexibility, and continuation of the broad public benefits provided by
both public and private lands in the West. On behalf of the Public
Lands Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Oregon
Cattlemen's Association and, most significantly, over 22,000 families
who depend on public land grazing, I urge your support for this
legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the Grazing
Improvement Act. I am happy to submit to the record responses to any
questions you may have.
______
Statement of Patricia Quintana, Executive Director,
Taos Land Trust, Taos, NM, on S. 312
I am writing in support of S. 312, the Carson National Forest
Boundary Adjustment Act, introduced by New Mexico Senators Tom Udall
and Martin Heinrich. I am very grateful that your Senate Energy and
Natural Resources subcommittee is holding a hearing on this important
piece of legislation for New Mexico on April 25, 2013. I am very
hopeful that this bill will move fotward through the committee and
Senate as quickly as possible.
S. 312 is an impmtant bill for my community. It will adjust the
boundaries of the Carson National Forest to include the 5,000 acre
Miranda Canyon tract, protecting our local drinking water supplies and
ensuring that this high-value resource land is open to the public
forever. Adding Miranda Canyon to the forest will provide residents and
visitors with enhanced opportunities to hike, hunt, mountain bike and
generally enjoy the outdoors.
The Miranda Canyon acquisition is strongly supported by the local
community in Taos, including our county commission. In addition to
expanding recreational access, the project will protect water resources
within the Rio Grande watershed, a segment of the Old Spanish National
Historic Trail, wildlife habitat, and the scenic viewshed from the
valley towards Picuris Peak. All of these attributes contribute to the
economy and quality of life in Taos County.
Thank you for your consideration of this important piece of
legislation before your committee.
______
Statement of Kevin S. Carter, Director Utah School and Institutional
Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake City, UT, on S. 27
Introduction
On behalf of the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration, I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide
a statement in support of S. 27, the Hill Creek Cultural Preservation
and Energy Development Act. I also wish to thank the leadership of the
Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation for their unanimous and
continued support of S. 27 and predecessor efforts, and Utah Senators
Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee for their sponsorship of this legislation. S.
27 will permit resolution of a 64 year old land tenure problem, protect
reservation lands with outstanding values for wildlife and other
biological and scenic resources, promote tribal economic development,
and help fund public schools in Utah.
About SITLA
The School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (``SITLA'')
is an independent, non- patiisan state agency established to manage
lands granted by Congress to the State ofUtah at statehood for the
financial support of K-12 public education and other state
institutions. SITLA manages approximately 3.3 million acres of state
trust lands, and an additional million acres of mineral estate. Revenue
from school trust lands--most of which comes from mineral development--
is deposited in the Utah Pennanent School Fund, a perpetual endowment
suppmiing K-12 public schools. Investment income from this endowment is
distributed annually to each public and charter school in Utah to
supp01i academic priorities chosen at the individual school level.
Background
In the 1930s and early 1940s, substantial conflict arose between
Indian and non-Indian ranchers over the rights to graze cattle on the
public domain in southern Uintah and northern Grand Counties, Utah. The
Department of the Interior's Indian service (now the Bureau of Indian
Affairs) proposed resolution of these disputes through the addition of
a 510,000-acre area of public domain to the existing Uintah and Ouray
reservation. The addition, which came to be known as the Hill Creek
Extension, was fonnalized by Congress through the Act of March 11,
1948, 62 Stat. 72 (the ``Hill Creek Act''). Because the focus of the
Hill Creek Act was protection of tribal grazing uses, large areas of
previously withdrawn mineral rights under the extension were retained
by the Bureau of Land Management (``BLM'') as part of the public
domain, rather than becoming tribal minerals. A map* showing mineral
ownership within the extension is attached as Exhibit `T' and a general
location map of the Hill Creek Extension is attached as Exhibit r to
this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All maps have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time that the Hill Creek Extension was created, the State of
Utah also owned approximately 38,000 acres of state school trust lands
inside the extension, most of which were scattered sections in the
familiar ``checkerboard'' pattern of western land ownership.
Recognizing the potential need to remove state trust lands from the
extension, Congress included provisions in the Hill Creek Act allowing
the State to relinquish state trust lands within the extension to the
United States for the benefit of the tribe, and to select replacement
lands from public lands ``outside the area hereby withdrawn.'' In 1955,
Congress amended the Hill Creek Act to clarify that this right of
relinquishment and selection extended to lands ``mineral in character.
. . . Pub. L. 263, 69 Stat. 544 (Aug. 9. 1955)(the ``1955 Act'').
In 1957, the Utah legislature authorized the State Land Board
(SITLA 's predecessor agency) to sell the surface estate of all state
trust lands located in the Hill Creek Extension to the Ute Tribe for
$2.50/acre. L. Utah, ch. 144, Sec. 1-3 (1957), cod fied at Utah Code
Ann. Sec. Sec. 65-83, -85 (1961)(repealed). This legislation expressly
required the State to reserve the mineral estate and the right of
ingress and egress to develop such minerals. The sale of surface lands
authorized by the state legislation was consummated in 1958, leaving
Utah's school trust with approximately 38,000 acres of subsurface
mineral estate within the extension.
Need for the Current Legislation
In the intervening years, SITLA and its predecessor agencies and
the Ute Tribe have maintained a cordial and cooperative relationship in
connection with the development of state school trust minerals within
the Hill Creek Extension. Because ofthe area's remote geographic
location, there has not been significant industry demand for the
development of minerals in the southern part of the extension until
recently. With recent industry interest in the area, the Ute Tribe has
evaluated competing values and dete1mined that it wishes to maintain
the far southern portion of the extension--that portion of the
extension located in the Book Cliffs area of Grand County, Utah-as an
unspoiled area protected for religious and cultural values, as well as
wildlife and wilderness. The BLM Vernal Resource Management Plan
desc1ibes this area as follows:
The Hill Creek Extension Book Cliffs ``wilderness'' is where
relatively undisturbed natural values interrelate to
Triballifeways and religious pursuits. In these Tribal
sensitive areas, construction, operation and sights and sounds
of oil and gas wells and associated support facilities would
degrade the roadless and natural character of undisturbed
areas.
To accommodate the Ute Tribe's desire to maintain the Grand County
portion of the Hill Creek Extension in its undeveloped character, SITLA
filed an application with BLM in 2006 seeking to relinquish 18,247.54
acres of state trust minerals in the Grand County portion of the
extension to the United States for the benefit of the tribe, and to
select replacement minerals from BLM mineral estate further north in
the Hill Creek Extension. This relinquishment and request for selection
was made in accordance with applicable provisions of the 1948 Hill
Creek Act and its 1955 amendment.
BLM has declined to process SITLA's application on the basis that
public domain (i.e. non- tribal) minerals managed by BLM within the
Hill Creek Extension are not ``outside the area . . . withdrawn'' by
the 1948 and 1955 acts. Both the Ute Tribe and SITLA disagree with
BLM's conclusion in this regard since Congress expressly chose not to
withdraw BLM-managed minerals when it created the Hill Creek extension.
These mineral lands are open and unappropriated, and should be
available for selection.
BLM and the Office of the Solicitor in the Department of the
Interior have drawn the opposite conclusion, contending that BLM
minerals within the extension are not subject to selection. S. 27 would
override this conclusion, and confirm that the State of Utah, upon
relinquishment of mineral estate within the Grand County portion of the
Hill Creek Extension, may select BLM mineral estate within the exterior
boundaries of the extension in Uintah County.
It should be noted that under the Hill Creek Act and its 1955
amendment, SITLA has the unquestioned right to select BLM lands outside
the Hill Creek Extension elsewhere in Utah. SITLA and the Ute Tribe are
jointly pursuing S. 27 because they believe that a selection of BLM
minerals inside the extension is most beneficial to all parties
involved. If S. 27 is not enacted, SITLA will either select replacement
lands from public lands outside the extension, or lease its existing
mineral estate to industry.
Description of S.27
S. 27 adds a new section 5 to the Hill Creek Act. This new section
5 does two things. First, it clarifies that upon the State's
relinquishment of minerals within the Hill Creek Extension, the State
may use the 1948 and 1955 acts to select replacement minerals from BLM
minerals in the Uintah County portion of the extension on an acre for
acre basis. Second, it provides that the United States will reserve an
overriding mineral interest in all lands conveyed to the State equal to
the percentage of revenue that the United States would have retained
under the federal Mineral Leasing Act had the lands remained in federal
ownership and been leased at the current time. The State of Utah would
reserve an identical interest in the state lands relinquished to the
United States for the benefit of the tribe.
The mineral reservation provisions are drafted to ensure that both
the federal treasury and the State school trust are held harmless by
the relinquishment/selection process. BLM minerals that would be
selected by Utah are currently not leased for oil and gas, but are
thought to be prospective, particularly for natural gas. The State
trust lands that would be relinquished to the United States for the
benefit of the tribe are similarly prospective. Appraisals of
prospective but nonproducing mineral lands are expensive and inherently
unreliable due to the many unknowable variables involved in determining
potential resources and their likelihood of production. The mineral
reservation provisions of S. 27 avoid the expense and unreliability of
mineral appraisals by sharing revenue from each set of lands equally.
Under existing federal law, the United States retains 50 percent of
bonuses, rentals and royalties from mineral production on federal
lands, with the remaining half transferred to the state of production.
30 U.S.C. Sec. 191. After the State's acquisition of BLM minerals
through S. 27, the United States would still retain all revenue that
the United States treasury would have received from leasable minerals
had the U.S. retained ownership of the lands, i.e. 50 percent of
bonuses and rentals, and a share of royalties equal to the federal
share of production royalties (6.25 percent in the case of oil and gas,
different amounts for tar sands and oil shale). This language would
ensure that the U.S. treasury and federal taxpayers are held ham1less
in the transaction, while saving the United States management and
royalty collection costs.
In connection with the identical language passed by the House of
Representatives in the last Congress, H.R. 4027 (I 12th Cong., 2d
Sess.), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) detem1ined that enacting
the legislation would have no impact on federal direct spending or
revenues over the ten year CBO analysis period:
H.R. 4027 would authorize a transfer of federally owned
subsurface mineral rights for an equivalent number of acres of
state land. However, the acres transferred may not have the
same value because mineral deposits are not evenly spread
across all areas. To compensate for such a potential imbalance,
H.R. 4027 would preserve the federal government's existing
financial rights to the value of any subsurface minerals that
are developed on all properties . . . . Therefore, CBO
estimates that enacting the legislation would have no impact on
direct spending or revenues over the 2013-2022 period.
A copy of the CBO Cost Estimate is attached as Exhibit ``3'' to
this statement.
Utah's school trust would likewise share in half of any revenue
from the relinquished lands, although subsection 5(5) provides that
neither party is obligated to lease lands in which the other party
retains a reserved interest. Thus, if the Ute Tribe chooses not to
permit leasing oflands relinquished by the State, no revenue would be
generated for the State school trust.
This type of arrangement has legislative precedent. Sharing of
revenue by pa1iies exchanging land was a critical component of the
large state-federal land exchange, Project BOLD, championed by Utah
Governor Scott Matheson. More recently, in connection with the Utah
Recreational Land Exchange Act of 1009, Public Law 111-53 (``URLEA . .
. ''), BLM and SITLA recognized that any formal appraisal of oil shale
would be expensive and inaccurate, and jointly asked Congress to
include language for oil shale identical in effect to that contained in
S. 27. URLEA was enacted with this language. S. 27 simply extends the
concept to all Jeaseable minerals.
SITLA has received feedback about S. 27 raising two questions: (1)
why does the legislation not provide for formal mineral appraisals; and
(2) why does the legislation base the reserved royalty interest of each
party on the existing royalty rate structure rather than allowing the
federal reserved interest to rise if federal royalty rates rise in the
future? The answers to these questions are as follows:
(1) The proposal does not require formal mineral appraisals
because appraisals of prospective but nonproducing mineral
lands are expensive and inherentl y unreliable due to the many
unknowable variables involved in determining potential
resources and their likelihood of production. SITLA and BLM are
currently engaged in mineral appraisals in connection with the
Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-53
(``URLEA . . . ). The cost of mineral appraisals in the URLEA
exchange was so high that BLM was unable to fund its share of
costs for over three years after congressional enactment. In
the current age of sequestration, it seems unlikely that BLM
will be able to fund a similar project in the foreseeable
future. Mineral appraisals have been a major sticking point in
other contexts, causing the failure of legislation to exchange
Utah school trust lands out of national forests and parks (Pub.
L. 103-93, although that failure was subsequently rectified
through the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
exchange, Pub. L. 105-335). The mineral reservation provisions
of S. 27 would avoid the expense and unreliability of mineral
appraisals by sharing revenue from each set of lands equally.
As CBO noted, this would have no direct impact on federal
revenues, because the legislation would preserve the federal
government's existing financial rights in the selected lands.
(2) H.R. 4207 would give the United States an overriding
interest in the lands to be acquired by SITLA equal to 6.25
percent of proceeds from oil and gas, and equal to 50 percent
of the royalty rate from other leaseable minerals, based on
royalty rates as of October 1, 2011 (the date this proposal was
first incorporated into proposed legislation). These
provisions, as noted above, would ensure that the United States
would receive revenue equivalent to that it would receive if
the lands remained in federal ownership, based on the existing
federal royalty structure. As noted below, SITLA and the Ute
Tribe are joining together to develop the selected lands for
mutual benefit. If the United States could unilaterall y raise
its share of revenue from those lands at a later date- reducing
or eliminating the share of the Utah school trust and the Ute
Tribe--neither pruty would have the economic certainty
necessary to proceed with the transaction. This would result in
SITLA either selecting replacement lands from public lands
outside the extension under existing authority, or leasing its
existing mineral estate in the extension to industry.
It is important to note that the United States is currently
receiving nothing from the lands to be selected, and will not unless S.
27 is passed. Although there is some legal uncertainty about the issue,
the United States has taken the position that the Tribal Consent Act,
25 U.S.C. Sec. 324, requires tribal consent for surface occupancy of
the lands to be selected, as well as any necessary access rights-of-
way. By tribal ordinance, such consent is not available to any
prospective federal lessee, so there is no prospect of future royalty
revenue to the federal treasury from the BLM minerals to be selected by
SITLA under S. 27. This is true no matter how high the United States
raises the royalty rate for federal oil and gas: a higher percent of
zero is still zero.
Tribal Economic Development
One of the great success stories in Native American economic
development in recent years has been the growth in active participation
by tribes in the business of mineral development on tribal lands as
well as lands outside of reservation areas. The Energy Policy Act of
2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) included a Title V entitled the Indian Tribal
Enerry Development and Self Determination Act. This Act authorized
considerably brreater autonomy for tribes in the development of tribal
energy resources. The Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation has
embraced this opportunity in its goal of tribal self-determination and
financial autonomy.
If H.R. 4207 is enacted, SITLA has agreed to join with the Ute
Tribe in development of the selected lands for mineral extraction in a
prudent and responsible manner. A joint transaction of the nature
contemplated by SITLA and the Tribe would add 18,257 acres to the
Tribe's mineral portfolio, creating jobs and supporting financial self-
sufficiency for tribal members. The Utah legislature and both Grand and
Uintah Counties have supported the proposed legislation as well.
Conclusion
S. 27 will allow the Ute Tribe to eliminate the possibility of
surface-subsurface conflict arising from the presence of state school
trust minerals underlying sensitive lands in the south portion of the
Hill Creek extension. It will allow Utah's school trust to generate
revenue for K-12 public education in Utah, and allow the Ute Tribe to
generate additional revenue to support tribal economic independence,
without cost to federal taxpayers. I respectfully urge the
subcommittee's support for S. 27. Thank you for the opportunity to
provide this statement.
______
Western Organizations,
April 22, 2013.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, S-221 Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, S-230 Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,304 Dirksen
Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, aqWashington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, Chairman
Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski:
On behalf of our respective organizations, we write in support of
S. 368, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization
of 2013 (FLTFA reauthorization), a critical lands bill for the West. We
urge you to advance S. 368 quickly through Committee and pass it in the
Senate, in order to reinstate this important program as soon as
possible. Our groups and many others are eagerly waiting for Congress
to reinstate the program.
FLTFA is a common-sense lands tool that achieves economic and
environmental goals. Through FLTFA's ``land for land'' concept, the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) sells lands identified for disposal,
generating revenue for high-value federal conservation projects with
willing sellers in the West. Through this balanced approach, the BLM
has more capacity to sell land to private land owners, counties,
companies and others for ranching, community development, businesses
and various projects. The sales revenue fuels jobs and allows federal
agencies to acquire high-priority lands with recreational access,
historic significance, ecological importance and other conservation
values. Before it expired, FLTFA funded 39 projects throughout the
West, including creating public access for trout fishing along the
North Platte River in Wyoming, hiking in the heart of Hells Canyon
Wilderness in Arizona, and exploring ancient Pueblo ruins at Canyons of
the Ancients National Monument in Colorado. The conservation purchases
often enhanced the tourism and recreation economies of local
communities through retail sales, hotels, restaurants, gas stations and
more. FLTFA helped consolidate inholdings to allow for better
management of public lands.
The revenue also provides funding for BLM realty staff to conduct
the program. Without the FLTFA program, BLM has very limited funding to
conduct sales, appraisals, acquisitions and other real estate
procedures that benefit communities, ranchers, farmers, businesses and
others.
As the bill moves forward, we look forward to working with you and
your staff. Please reauthorize FLTFA as soon as possible, in order to
provide benefits for local economies, communities, agencies and
conservation.
Sincerely,
Access Fund
Agua Fria Open Space Alliance, Inc.
Ala Kahakai Trail Association
American Bird Conservancy
American Canoe Association
American Hiking Society
American Horse Council
American Sportfishing Association
American Whitewater
Arizona Trail Association
Audubon New Mexico
Backcountry Horsemen of America
Backcountry Horsemen of California
Backcountry Horsemen of Washington
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
Boone and Crockett Club
0Carson Valley Trails Association
Citizen's for Dixie's Future
Colorado Mountain Biking Association
Columbia Land Trust
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
Conservation Lands Foundation
Ducks Unlimited
Endangered Habitats League
Friends of Ironwood Forest
Friends of the Missouri Breaks Monument
Friends of the Sonoran Desert National Monument
Grand Canyon Wildlands Council
Grand Staircase Escalante Partners
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Hancock Natural Resource Group
Henry's Fork Foundation
Idaho Conservation League
Idaho Rivers United
International Mountain Bicycling Association
Japanese American Citizens League
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center
Land Trust Alliance
Legacy Land and Water Lewis and Clark Trust, Inc. Montana
Wilderness Association
Mule Deer Foundation
National Alliance of Forest Owners
National Parks Conservation Association
National Trust for Historic Preservation
National Wild Turkey Federation
National Wilderness Stewardship Alliance
National Wildlife Federation
Nevada Land Trust
Old Spanish Trail Association
Oregon Natural Desert Association
Oregon-California Trails Association
Outdoor Alliance
Outdoor Alliance
Outdoor Industry Association
Pacific Crest Trail Association
Pacific Northwest Trail Association
Partnership for the National Trails System Public Lands Foundation
Pure Fishing
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
San Juan Citizens Alliance
Santa Fe Trail Association
Scenic America
Sierra Club
Soda Mountain Wilderness Council Superstition Area Land Trust
Teton Regional Land Trust
The Appalachian Trail Conservancy
The Conservation Fund
The Mountaineers
The Nature Conservancy
The Trust for Public Land
The Wilderness Land Trust
The Wilderness Society
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Trout Unlimited
Truckee Meadows Trails Association
Tuleyome
Western Rivers Conservancy
Wild Sheep Foundation
Wildlife Management Institute
Winter Wildlands Alliance
______
Statement of The Wilderness Society, on S. 341,
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
Committee:
On behalf of The Wilderness Society and its half million members
and supporters nationwide, and on behalf of the organizations listed
above, I would like to thank the Committee for considering the San Juan
Mountains Wilderness Act of 2013. This bill would not only protect some
of Colorado's beloved scenic wild country, it is also the product of
years of painstaking research and consultation with a myriad of
interested and affected stakeholders in southwest Colorado. I would
especially like to thank Senator Udall for his long-standing dedication
to land protection, and commitment to protecting these deserving areas.
I also want to thank Senator Michael Bennet, who is an original
cosponsor of S.341.
Colorado has a long and rich tradition of wilderness protection,
with nearly twenty bills enacted over the last 45 years. All of these
have shared the characteristics of broad citizen and stakeholder
support and cooperation among the State's delegation members. The San
Juan Mountains Act is carrying on this proud Colorado tradition.
This legislation had its genesis with the interest of San Miguel
County citizens in adding deserving wild land areas to the already
designated Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wildernesses, and adding
statutory protection to several other spectacular and qualifying
backcountry landscapes. Residents of neighboring counties also
advocated protection for deserving contiguous lands outside San Miguel
County, and by the Spring of 2009, the proposal included lands in three
counties (San Miguel, Ouray, and San Juan), and enjoyed nearly
universal support in the region. More detail about that follows.
Colorado's San Juan Mountains offer a myriad of benefits and
services to residents of Colorado and visitors from across the nation.
Spectacular mountain vistas, clean water and air, ongoing ranching
operations, healthy wildlife populations, and a wide variety of world-
class recreational opportunities, from hunting and angling to skiing,
hiking, and boating. In decades past, hard rock mining was a major
force in the region's development; evidence of this history is
scattered across the landscape in the form of weathered mill sites,
mine shafts, and tailings piles. As the economic drivers in the
intermountain West steadily evolved during the post-war 20th century,
and outdoor recreation grew in popularity, local communities looked
increasingly toward tourism and recreation as a significant part of
their economic foundations. Visitors come to the region in large
numbers to enjoy not only backcountry challenges, but also to
experience the area's rich history. Thousands of tourists ride the
original narrow gauge train from Durango to Silverton each year, to
wander the town's historic main street or learn about the region's
mining history.
As one measure of this modern economy, hunting and fishing alone
brought in, in direct expenditures, $7.2 million in San Miguel County,
$2.4 million in Ouray County, and $1.3 million in San Juan County in
2002. Hunting and fishing groups routinely emphasize the importance of
protected lands as the basis for healthy game populations.
As the economy of the San Juan Mountains region has evolved into
what it is today, and as more and more people visit to experience the
natural and recreational values offered by the area's public lands, the
protection of those lands has become increasingly valued by local
residents, stakeholders, and elected officials. This phenomenon has
occurred concurrent with our increasing knowledge of the importance of
large areas of undisturbed land for a broad array of wildlife, both to
maintain functioning natural systems, and for the human benefits that
healthy wildlife populations provide. Protective designations also help
to ensure the resiliency of these areas in the face of climate change.
Protected public lands provide a critical benefit to local
communities in the form of clean water and air. Each of the areas
proposed for permanent protection in this legislation contain portions
of the watersheds that comprise the water supplies of Telluride, Ouray,
Ridgway, and Silverton. Wilderness will keep those watersheds intact
and ensure they are able to provide clean water to those communities in
perpetuity.
Natural and Human Values of the San Juan Mountains
The San Juan Mountains, and pointedly the areas proposed for
protection in this legislation, offer a rich array of natural and
environmental values. The existing Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head
Wilderness areas are the headwaters of the San Miguel, Dolores, and
Uncompahgre Rivers, and many of their tributaries, such as Deep Creek,
Dallas Creek, Bilk Creek, and Wilson Creek. Areas in the legislation
make up large portions of the municipal water supplies for towns in all
three counties. These waterways also offer some of the West's finest
fishing opportunities--anglers from across the country come to
southwest Colorado to fish for many species, including the iconic
Colorado Cutthroat Trout.
What wildlife of all kinds needs more than anything is space--large
areas of land in which to feed, grow, and bear their young. The
mountain areas in the legislation will expand the core habitat already
protected in the Mt. Sneffels and Lizard Head Wildernesses, and
increase the elevation range of existing protected areas by adding
habitat rich down-slope areas. The Sheep Mountain designation would add
another significant core habitat area, and improve the wildlife
connectivity to protected areas on the San Juan National Forest, like
the Weminuche Wilderness. These mountain designations will benefit
existing populations of Black bear, elk, bighorn sheep, and bird
species such as the white-tailed ptarmigan, and provide critical
habitat for other wildlife such as Canada lynx and Northern goshawk.
Moving down from the higher mountain areas, the proposed McKenna
Peak Wilderness and mineral withdrawal for Naturita Canyon would
protect mid-elevation lands critical as winter range for deer and elk
(North Mountain, which borders McKenna Peak, contains one of the
largest deer and elk herds in Colorado), as well as habitat for such
species as mountain lion, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon. The mineral
withdrawal proposed for Naturita Canyon would protect more of these
vital lands, benefitting not only the resident deer, elk, bobcat,
raptors and rare birds like the Mexican spotted owl; but a rich
riparian zone as well.
Ecosystem representation, or selecting areas for protection that
represent a full range of habitats and vegetation types, is a way of
ensuring protection of the species that rely on these various
ecosystems for survival. The Nature Conservancy, which practices this
``coarse filter'' method, estimates that 85 percent to 90 percent of
all species in a region can be protected via ecosystem representation.
Protecting down-slope mountain landscapes, as well as mid-elevation
areas like McKenna Peak and Naturita Canyon would expand ecosystem
representation in the region; this helps fulfill the purposes not only
of the 1964 Wilderness Act, but of conservation biology overall.
Agriculture has a rich history in the San Juan Mountains, and not
only provides a long-standing livelihood for multi-generational
families, but also forms an essential part of the cultural fabric of
the entire region. There are nearly a dozen working ranches with
allotments that overlap the areas in the legislation. These ranch
operators were all consulted as the legislation was crafted; following
is a quote from Ouray County rancher Liza Clarke, owner of the Ferguson
Family Ranch, from a letter to former Congressman John Salazar, who
introduced a House version of the legislation in 2009:
I was happy to learn that the proposed boundaries avoid any
substantial conflict with existing uses and private property. I
understand that grazing leases will continue under any new
wilderness designation.'' ``I respectfully request that you
introduce legislation to expand the Sneffels Wilderness Area in
Ouray County. This proposal has widespread support in our
County and includes signature views, including Mount Sneffels
itself which is currently only partially contained in its
namesake Wilderness Area.''
Recreation and tourism is the backbone of the San Juan Mountains
regional economy. For visitors who come to explore the region's
history, go on a jeep tour, or ride the Durango-Silverton train, the
backdrop views of majestic mountain peaks is essential to the
experience. Winter recreation is dominated by skiing, including the
developed alpine resort of Telluride, the recently developed Silverton
Mountain area, and Colorado's only heli-skiing operation. Backcountry
skiing is hugely popular across the range.
In the warmer months, recreational users comb the mountains. Hikers
enjoy thousands of miles of trails, whether to see the spectacular
views of the Telluride valley from atop its enclosing cliffs, or
through a multi-day backpack into the beautiful Ice Lakes Basin out of
Silverton. Climbers challenge themselves against the iconic 14,150 foot
Mt. Sneffels, the rock walls near Telluride, and the famous frozen
waterfalls just outside of Ouray. The San Juan Mountains are a world
class destination for mountain biking, and many trails skirt the edges
of the areas in S. 341. The famous Hard Rock 100 footrace--one of most
grueling of its kind in the nation--courses through the heart of the
region.
Outreach to Regional Stakeholders
The process of outreach for, and vetting of, the San Juan Mountains
Wilderness proposal has been detailed and comprehensive. Thanks to the
leadership of local citizens groups in the three counties--Sheep
Mountain Alliance in San Miguel County, the Ridgway-Ouray Community
Council in Ouray County, the Silverton Mountain School in San Juan
County, and the San Juan Citizens Alliance for the McKenna Peak
proposal--the original proposal was crafted with extensive and intimate
familiarity of the landscapes of interest. Each of these local groups
worked closely with their respective county governments in carefully
considering the ramifications and benefits of protective designations.
San Miguel County first expressed support for wilderness legislation in
June 2007, followed a short time later by the Commission of Ouray
County. San Juan County followed in 2009, with an endorsement of
expanding the proposed Sheep Mountain Special Management Area.
Extensive outreach to stakeholders that could directly or
indirectly be affected by the legislation was conducted for over two
years before legislation was introduced, involving painstaking work to
consult with, and respond to, anyone with a stake in these
designations. Every livestock operator with a permit in the proposed
areas was contacted, as were the owners of private land inside the
areas (mostly patented mining claims), water right holders, recreation
interests, State agencies, and local governments. Numerous adjustments
were made to the areas in the bill to accommodate concerns of these
parties. Just a few examples follow.
The Sheep Mountain area was originally proposed for--with strong
local support--designation as wilderness. Early in the outreach
process, wilderness advocates were approached by the helicopter-
supported skiing company Helitrax, who informed us that Sheep Mountain
was the heart of their operation, in which they land helicopters to
drop off skiers. This particular use would not be allowed in a
wilderness and therefore a compromise was crafted to accommodate this
use while protecting the wild character of Sheep Mountain via a Special
Management Area.
Another example of efforts to make the legislation work for
stakeholders is with the Towns of Telluride and Ophir. Both Towns had
either historic or potential new water supply facilities in the
proposed areas (Telluride in the proposed Liberty Bell addition to Mt.
Sneffels Wilderness, and Ophir in the Sheep Mountain SMA); staff from
both Towns were consulted with to adjust boundaries to make sure that
designations wouldn't interfere with the development or operation of
these water supplies.
Motorized recreation is an important piece of the recreational
landscape in the San Juan Mountains, and thousands of visitors come
each year to experience the Ophir Pass jeep road and Alpine Loop. Great
care was taken to ensure that motorized routes would not be closed by
the legislation, and boundaries were drawn or adjusted meticulously to
achieve that. For example, the boundaries of McKenna Peak and Naturita
Canyon were reduced significantly from what was originally proposed to
eliminate known motorized routes. Similarly, the boundaries of the
Whitehouse and Last Dollar additions to the Mt. Sneffels Wilderness
were adjusted to provide for snowmobile access to backcountry huts
operated by San Juan Huts for stocking and maintenance.
Another example relates to concerns with proposed wilderness and
SMA boundaries brought forth by staff from the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre,
and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest. A number of boundary adjustment
recommendations were made to improve manageability or to eliminate
specific potential conflicts, and these were incorporated into the
legislation; we thank the Forest Service for its knowledgeable advice
and help on refining this important legislation.
On another recreation issue, the course of the renowned Hard Rock
100 footrace runs through two of the areas in the bill. A non-profit
entity, the Hard Rock brings about 130 runners to the San Juan
Mountains once each summer to run the backcountry trails and high
mountain passes. No support facilities are placed within proposed
wilderness, and travel is by foot only. Although the National Forest
Service Manual prohibits competitive events in designated wilderness,
and we generally support that prohibition, wilderness advocates believe
this particular race is appropriate, since the fundamental activity,
running, is completely compatible with wilderness, no other non-
conforming uses are associated with the event, and the race has a long-
established history in this area. Guidance for the decision to allow
the race to continue was found in House Natural Resources Committee
Chairman Rahall's Wild Monongahela Wilderness legislation, enacted in
the 111th Congress as part of the Omnibus Public Lands legislation.
Although southwest Colorado makes important contributions to energy
production, the areas in this legislation are not part of that. No
existing oil and gas leases are affected by the proposed designations,
and exploratory wells recently drilled near McKenna Peak have not
discovered developable deposits. A number of other adjustments were
made to the legislation, assuring a steadily increasing degree of
support throughout the outreach and vetting process.
Support for the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act
The result of the consultation with numerous stakeholders and
adjustments made to the proposal is legislation that enjoys support
both deep and broad. Written support for the legislation has been
received from:
San Miguel County Board of County Commissioners
Ouray County Board of County Commissioners
San Juan County Board of County Commissioners
Town of Telluride
Town of Ophir
Town of Mountain Village
Town of Ridgway
City of Ouray
San Miguel County Open Space Commission
San Miguel Conservation Foundation
Telluride Tourism Board
Telluride Open Space Commission
Rancher and grazing permittee Liza Clark
Hidden Lakes Home Owners Association
San Bernardo Home Owners Association
Many adjacent landowners
Telluride Helitrax
Hard Rock 100 Endurance Run
San Miguel County Sheriff
Prominent members of the local mountain biking community
Numerous local, regional, and national conservation and
recreation organizations.
We hope that the information and history included here will be of
help with Committee members as they consider the merits of S. 341. The
Wilderness Society along with all the other supporters of this
legislation stand ready to help in any way, and we encourage the
Members of this Subcommittee and the full Energy and Natural Resources
Committee to support this legislation, and report it expeditiously for
consideration by the full Senate.
We'd like to again thank Senator Udall for his excellent work in
crafting this legislation, and also thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit our views on S. 341.