[Senate Hearing 115-482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-482
PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 32 S. 468 S. 941
S. 90 S. 614 S. 1149
S. 357 S. 785 S. 1230
S. 436 S. 837 S. 1271
S. 467 S. 884 S. 1548
__________
JULY 26, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-870 WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
MIKE LEE, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO RON WYDEN
JAMES E. RISCH DEBBIE STABENOW
JEFF FLAKE AL FRANKEN
STEVE DAINES JOE MANCHIN III
CORY GARDNER MARTIN HEINRICH
LAMAR ALEXANDER MAZIE K. HIRONO
JOHN HOEVEN CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
BILL CASSIDY
LUTHER STRANGE
Colin Hayes, Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources
Policy Director
Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Lee, Hon. Mike, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from
Utah........................................................... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from Wyoming................. 4
Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana.................. 5
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska.... 7
WITNESSES
Tester, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 105
Casamassa, Glenn, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture............ 111
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah................... 124
Ruhs, John, Acting Deputy Director for Operations, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.................... 127
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
29 Palms Inn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 252
Advocates for Access to Public Lands:
Letter for the Record........................................ 193
Agenda........................................................... 2
Alabama Hills Stewardship Group:
Letter for the Record........................................ 194
Alaska Federation of Natives:
Statement for the Record..................................... 12
Alaska Miners Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 196
Alaska State Legislature, 2006:
Legislative Resolve No. 37 for the Record.................... 37
Alaska Wilderness League, et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 197
Aloysius, Jr., Mrs. Jake A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 82
American Exploration & Mining Association:
Email and Letter for the Record.............................. 199
American Fly Fishing Trade Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 201
American Forest Resource Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 202
American Rivers:
Letter for the Record........................................ 206
Americans for Responsible Recreational Access (ARRA), et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 229
Amik, David:
Email for the Record......................................... 208
Anderson, Jr., Nels:
Letter for the Record........................................ 34
Andrews Jr., John B.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 57
Ark Land:
Letter for the Record........................................ 209
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers:
Letter for the Record........................................ 211
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
Bran, David A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 49
Brown, Darrell T.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 80
Business for Montana's Outdoors:
Letter for the Record........................................ 213
California Wilderness Coalition (CalWild):
Letter for the Record........................................ 248
Statement for the Record..................................... 249
Casamassa, Glenn:
Opening Statement............................................ 111
Written Testimony............................................ 114
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 188
CEMEX Construction Materials Pacific, LLC:
Letter for the Record........................................ 265
Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska and
Tanana Chiefs Conference:
Resolutions/Letter for the Record............................ 30
City of Highland (CA):
Letter for the Record........................................ 255
Resolution 2016-006 for the Record........................... 256
City of Redlands (CA):
Letter for the Record........................................ 259
City of St. George (Utah):
Letter for the Record........................................ 215
Conservation Lands Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 233
Daines, Hon. Steve:
Opening Statement............................................ 5
Photo--Chico Hot Springs..................................... 6
Dewey, Valerie J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 65
Earthjustice:
Memorandum for the Record.................................... 216
East Valley Water District:
Letter for the Record........................................ 263
Endangered Habitats League:
Letter for the Record........................................ 264
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne:
Statement for the Record..................................... 218
California Protection and Recreation Act of 2017--Overview
Map........................................................ 227
List of Letters and Statements in support of S. 32........... 228
List of Letters and Statements in support of S. 357.......... 253
Santa Ana River Wash Plan Subcomponents Map.................. 268
Frank, Albert:
Letter for the Record........................................ 54
Friends of Big Morongo Canyon Preserve:
Letter for the Record........................................ 246
Friends of El Mirage:
Letter for the Record........................................ 244
Friends of Jawbone:
Letter for the Record........................................ 238
Friends of the Inyo:
Letter for the Record addressed to Senators Murkowski and
Cantwell dated July 19, 2017............................... 240
Letter for the Record addressed to Senator Feinstein dated
April 10, 2017............................................. 242
Glover, Everett J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 74
Graves, John W.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 77
Gray, James:
Letter for the Record........................................ 50
Greater Yellowstone Coalition:
Letter for the Record dated July 24, 2016.................... 269
Copper Sulfide Mining Fact Sheet, Earthworks............. 270
U.S. Copper Porphyry Mines Report, Earthworks, July 2012. 272
Letter for the Record dated July 24, 2016.................... 306
Center for Science in Public Participation: Memorandum
regarding Emigrant Prospect, MT, and Lucky Minerals,
dated September 9, 2015................................ 307
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology: Baseline Water-
Quality Investigation, Emigrant Creek Watershed, South-
Central Montana, 2016.................................. 313
Letter for the Record dated July 24, 2016.................... 335
Comparison of Predicted and Actual Water Quality at
Hardrock Mines: The reliability of predictions in
Environmental Impact Statements by Kuipers, Maest,
MacHardy and Lawson, 2006.............................. 336
Letter for the Record dated August 2, 2017................... 563
U.S. Gold Mines: Spills & Failures Report, Earthworks,
July 2017.............................................. 564
Letter for the Record dated August 2, 2017................... 628
Selected press clippings regarding proposed gold mines in
Park County, MT:
Article by Alex Philp in the Billings Gazette dated
August 5, 2017, titled ``Guest opinion: Daines holds up
Yellowstone Gateway Act''.............................. 634
Article in the Billings Gazette dated August 1, 2017,
titled ``Gazette opinion: Time to protect Paradise
Valley''............................................... 636
Article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated July 30,
2017, titled ``Tester's bill too important for
platitudes''........................................... 639
Article by David McCumber in the Billings Gazette dated
July 30, 2017, titled ``Mine near Yellowstone gets DEQ
approval for preliminary drilling''.................... 640
Article by the Associated Press in the Billings Gazette
dated
July 26, 2017, titled ``Gold mining proposal near
Yellowstone
advances''............................................. 643
Article by Elliott D. Woods in The Guardian dated July
16, 2017, titled `` `More valuable than gold':
Yellowstone businesses prepare to fight mining''....... 645
Article by Michael Wright in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated June 22, 2017, titled ``Paradise Valley mine
opponents pressuring Daines to support Tester's ban''.. 649
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
June 20, 2017, titled ``Locals seek action from Steve
Daines on fed mining ban''............................. 651
Article by Tyson Nunley in the Billings Gazette dated
June 9, 2017, titled ``Protect Yellowstone River''..... 653
Article in the Billings Gazette dated June 3, 2017,
titled ``Gazette opinion: Permanent protection for
Paradise''............................................. 654
Article by Sabina Strauss, Richard Parks, and Nathan
Varley in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated June 3,
2017, titled ``Delegation must keep up fight against
mine near YNP''........................................ 657
Article by Gillian Cleary in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated May 18, 2017, titled ``Thanks to Sen. Tester for
his stance on Yellowstone''............................ 659
Article by John Salazar in the Billings Gazette dated May
6, 2017, titled ``Yellowstone more valuable than gold'' 660
Article by Justin Post in The Livingston Enterprise dated
May 2, 2017, titled ``Enterprise Editorial: Ryan
Zinke's chance''....................................... 661
Article by Rich Hohne in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated April 30, 2017, titled ``Time for Montanans to
stand up for our Yellowstone''......................... 663
Article by Sabina V. Strauss in the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle dated April 29, 2017, titled ``Thanks to Sen.
Tester for protecting Yellowstone''.................... 663
Article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle dated April 28,
2017, titled ``Tester lauded for standing up for YNP''. 664
Article by Brett French in the Billings Gazette dated
April 25, 2017, titled ``Tester announces legislation
to ban mining near Paradise Valley, Yellowstone
National Park''........................................ 666
Article by Ryan Smith in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated April 8, 2017, titled ``Montanans must stand
against mines near Yellowstone''....................... 669
Article by Nate Schweber for Parts Unknown dated April 4,
2017, titled ``Montana: Yellowstone's Mining Battle''.. 671
Article by Mike Garcia in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated February 19, 2017, titled ``Protection of
Yellowstone River should be extended''................. 676
Article by Ben Bulis in the Billings Gazette dated
February 18, 2017, titled ``Guest opinion: Protect
Montana's Paradise Valley water''...................... 677
Article by Michael Wright in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated January 19, 2017, titled ``Federal officials hold
open house on mineral withdrawal in Livingston''....... 679
Article by Susan Johnson in the Montana Standard dated
December 11, 2016, titled ``Congress should protect
Paradise''............................................. 681
Article by Diane Bristol in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated December 17, 2016, titled ``Why would we ever put
Yellowstone at risk?''................................. 682
Article by Bob and Kitzy Parker in the Billings Gazette
dated December 17, 2016, titled ``Why Paradise deserves
protection''........................................... 684
Article by Tom Bowler in the Billings Gazette dated
December 11, 2016, titled ``Mining projects were not a
good idea in Paradise Valley''......................... 685
Article by Justin Post in The Livingston Enterprise dated
November 23, 2016, titled ``Locals to thank for mining
decision''............................................. 686
Article by Brett French in the Billings Gazette dated
December 12, 2016, titled ``Gazette opinion: Protecting
Montana's Paradise''................................... 687
Article by Michael Wright in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated November 21, 2016, titled ``Obama Administration
blocks new mining claims on 30,000 acres in Paradise
Valley''............................................... 690
Article by Bill Stoddart in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated December 7, 2016, titled ``Preserving special
places can't be about politics''....................... 694
Article by Sabina V. Strauss in the Bozeman Daily
Chronicle dated November 30, 2016, titled ``Jewell's
mining block should be made permanent''................ 695
Article by Steven Koehler in the Billings Gazette dated
November 9, 2016, titled ``Guest opinion: Don't mine on
Yellowstone's border''................................. 696
Article by Kristi Vance in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated November 9, 2016, titled ``Mining near Emigrant
all risk and no reward''............................... 698
Article by Brett French in the Billings Gazette dated
October 9, 2016, titled ``Mining the Mountains of
Paradise: Struggles of the New West coalesce next to
Yellowstone''.......................................... 699
Article by Brant Oswald in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated August 24, 2016, titled ``Paradise Valley is no
place for a gold mine''................................ 709
Article by Dan Vermillion in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated August 17, 2016, titled ``Gold mine not worth
putting Yellowstone at risk''.......................... 711
Article by Andrew Field in the Billings Gazette dated
August 6, 2016, titled ``Guest opinion: Let's protect
Paradise Valley's greatest treasures''................. 712
Article by Dylan Brown for E&E News dated August 3, 2016,
titled ``Yellowstone: Local group battles 2 mining
projects just outside park''........................... 715
Article in the Billings Gazette dated July 25, 2016,
titled ``Gazette opinion: Protect Park County's outdoor
assets''............................................... 720
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
July 1, 2016, titled ``Rep. Zinke sides with opponents
of mining near park''.................................. 723
Article by Dwight Harriman in The Livingston Enterprise
dated July 7, 2016, titled ``We can't keep doing this'' 725
Article by Michael Wright in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
dated April 12, 2016, titled ``Company asked to
resubmit mining application on Yellowstone border''.... 727
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
March 25, 2016, titled ``Business owners form new group
opposing mining near Yellowstone''..................... 731
Article by Samantha Hill in The Livingston Enterprise
dated March 1, 2016, titled ``Park County criticizes
Crevice mine project in Jardine, DEQ takes comments''.. 732
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
Novem-
ber 9, 2015, titled ``Comments on Emigrant drilling
plan made
public''............................................... 733
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
August 20, 2015, titled ``Emigrant Peak mine
exploration: Thousands comment on company's plan before
deadline''............................................. 735
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Bill
Burris dated August 20, 2015, titled ``Exploratory
drilling in geothermal resource area is idiotic''...... 737
Article by Bill Stoddart in The Livingston Enterprise
dated August 19, 2015, titled ``The Emigrant Creek Mine
is a bad deal''........................................ 739
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by John
Usher dated August 18, 2015, titled ``In favor of
exploratory drilling''................................. 741
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by
Peter D. Fox dated August 14, 2015, titled ``Community
Foundation opposes Emigrant mine exploration proposal'' 742
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
August 11, 2015, titled ``Extensive review sought for
mine exploration plan''................................ 744
Article by Justin Post in The Livingston Enterprise dated
July 23, 2015, titled ``Right decision to extend
mineral exploration comment''.......................... 745
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
July 21, 2015, titled ``Comment period extended on
drilling proposal''.................................... 747
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
July 16, 2015, titled ``Thousands comment on Emigrant
mine pro-
posal''................................................ 749
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by
Anthony Eaton dated July 15, 2015, titled ``Too many
risks from Lucky Minerals' proposed exploratory
drilling''............................................. 750
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by
Susan and Jeff Bridges dated July 14, 2015, titled
``Mine exploration would be a disaster for the area''.. 752
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by
Michelle Uberuaga dated July 13, 2015, titled ``Stop
this project before it even gets started''............. 753
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by Gary
and Lisa Miller dated July 13, 2015, titled ``There is
hope for those opposing mining operation in Paradise
Valley''............................................... 755
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by
William C. Edwards dated July 13, 2015, titled
``Comments on Lucky Minerals' proposed exploratory
drilling''............................................. 757
Letter to the Editor of The Livingston Enterprise by
Shaun Dykes dated July 13, 2015, titled ``Jobs and the
environment don't have to be mutually exclusive''...... 758
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
July 10, 2015, titled ``Emigrant Peak Mine Exploration:
About 140 people attend meeting on company's proposal'' 760
Article by Justin Post in The Livingston Enterprise dated
July 10, 2015, titled ``There's a place for mines, and
it's not on Emigrant Peak''............................ 762
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
July 9, 2015, titled ``Emigrant mine plan raising
questions, concerns''.................................. 764
Article by Liz Kearney in The Livingston Enterprise dated
July 1, 2015, titled ``Groups discuss, express concerns
on proposed mine exploration''......................... 766
A Profile of Socioeconomic Measures, Park County, MT......... 768
Map of ``Elk Migrations of the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem'' by the Wyoming Migration Iniative dated
September 18, 2015 (DRAFT)................................. 813
Guthert, David:
Statement for the Record..................................... 100
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.:
Opening Statement............................................ 124
Written Testimony............................................ 126
Henry, Ray:
Letter for the Record........................................ 75
Hispanic Access Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 247
Huff, Patrick:
Letter for the Record........................................ 42
Hunter, Jr., Percy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 47
Huntington, Wayne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 59
Inland Action:
Letter for the Record........................................ 267
Jones, Roger M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 55
Joshua Green Corporation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 814
Joshua Tree National Park Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 251
Kake Tribal Corporation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 101
Koehler, Steven:
Letter for the Record........................................ 816
Koonaloak, George H.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 64
KS Wild, et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 818
List of Supporters of Wild Rogue Legislation................. 822
Report titled ``The Economic Value of Rogue River Salmon''
commissioned by the Save the Wild Rogue Campaign, dated
January 2009............................................... 879
Report titled ``Regional Economic Impacts of Recreation on
the Wild and Scenic Rogue River'' commissioned by the Save
the Wild Rogue Campaign, dated January 2009................ 907
Kukowski, Dave:
Letter for the Record........................................ 97
Kukowski, Michael and David:
Statement for the Record..................................... 98
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Lindoff, Jr., James M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 79
Littlefield, Michael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 46
Lucky Minerals Inc.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 951
Maxey, Clarence:
Letter for the Record........................................ 103
McKinley Sr., Alfred:
Letter for the Record........................................ 68
Mills, Anthony Gilbert:
Letter for the Record........................................ 70
Mills, George N.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 71
Mills, Robert D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 48
Mojave Desert Land Trust:
Letter for the Record........................................ 237
Monroe, Nick:
Letter for the Record........................................ 43
Montana Wildlife Federation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 954
Morris, Jake E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 67
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Opening Statement............................................ 7
List of Letters, Statements, and Resolutions in support of S.
785, S. 884, S. 1149....................................... 10
National Parks Conserviation Association:
Letter for the Record regarding S. 32 dated January 11, 2017. 231
Letter for the Record regarding S. 32 dated July 25, 2017.... 956
Letter for the Record regarding S. 941....................... 957
National Parks Conservation Association, et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 958
Native Village of Barrow, Inupiat Traditional Government:
Resolution #2009-18 for the Record........................... 21
Neimeyer, A. Michael:
Statement for the Record..................................... 961
Neketa, Nick:
Letter for the Record........................................ 53
Organized Village of Kake:
Resolution #2009-06 for the Record........................... 19
Parnell, Frank:
Letter for the Record........................................ 76
Paul, Sr., Ronald L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 73
(The) Pew Charitable Trusts:
Letter for the Record regarding S. 32........................ 239
Statement for the Record regarding S. 32 and S. 1548......... 963
Phillips, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 52
Pilot Point Traditional Council:
Resolution for the Record.................................... 20
Powers, Marlys A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 41
Prett, Willis P.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 72
QuadState Local Governments Authority:
Statement for the Record..................................... 966
Robertson's:
Letter for the Record........................................ 266
Ruhs, John:
Opening Statement............................................ 127
Written Testimony............................................ 129
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 189
San Bernardino County (CA):
Letter for the Record........................................ 254
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District:
Letter for the Record........................................ 260
Resolution 1036 for the Record............................... 261
Sealaska Corporatioon:
Letter for the Record........................................ 25
Semaken, Harold J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 45
Sifsof, Lawrence D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 81
Silas, Franklin R.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 63
Sitka Tribe of Alaska:
Resolution #2009-85 for the Record........................... 17
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 969
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 971
Strong, James B.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 35
Student Conservation Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 235
Suckling, Theodore D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 44
Sullivan, Hon. Dan:
Statement for the Record..................................... 973
Tanana Chiefs Conference:
Letter/Resolution for the Record............................. 27
Tester, Hon. Jon:
Opening Statement............................................ 105
Photo 1--Chico Hot Springs................................... 106
Photo 2--Outside Yellowstone National Park (near Gardiner,
Montana)................................................... 108
Photo 3--Off Highway 89 (Paradise Valley, Montana)........... 110
Thomas, Sherman A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 66
Thurneau, Vernon A.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 99
Tobuk, Homer:
Letter for the Record........................................ 40
Traditional Council of Togiak:
Resolution #2009-06 for the Record........................... 24
Trautner, John J.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 83
Trout Unlimited:
Letters for the Record....................................... 975
Ugashik Traditional Village Council:
Resolution #2009-11 for the Record........................... 23
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Statement for the Record regarding S. 1149................... 981
U.S. Department of the Interior:
Statement for the Record regarding S. 1230................... 171
Washington County (Utah) Commission:
Resolution No. R-2017-2219................................... 982
Washington County (Utah) Water Conservancy District:
Letter for the Record........................................ 984
Wells, Bryan, Sally & family:
Letter for the Record........................................ 985
White, Sr., David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 78
White, Sr., Frank C.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 69
Wild Rogue Outfitters Association, et al.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 988
(The) Wilderness Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 990
Williams, Norma J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 62
Yellowstone Gateway Business Coalition:
Letter for the Record........................................ 994
Park County Commission Letter................................ 996
Yellowstone Gateway Business Coalition Membership List as of
July 17, 2017.............................................. 998
Report by Dr. Larry Swanson titled ``Key Trends,
Dependencies, Strengths and Vulnerabilities in Park County,
Montana, and its Area Economy,'' April 2016................ 1004
Report titled ``Park County's Growing Economy: Southwest
Montana region uniquely positioned for continued economic
success,'' 2016............................................ 1061
----------
The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can
be found on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/
public/index.cfm/2017/7/subcommittee-hearing-on-various-bills
PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2017
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 9:45 a.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Lee,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee [presiding]. The Subcommittee will come to
order. This is our first legislative hearing in the Public
Lands, Forests, and Mining Subcommittee during this Congress.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony
regarding 15 separate legislative proposals pending before this
Subcommittee. Because of the large number of bills on today's
agenda, I am not going to go through all of them in their
entirety, but the complete agenda will, of course, be included
in the record.
[The complete agenda referred to follows:]
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
July 26, 2017 Hearing regarding Pending Legislation
AGENDA
S. 32, California Desert Protection and Recreation
Act
S. 90, Red River Gradient Boundary Survey Act
S. 357, Santa Ana River Wash Plan Land Exchange Act
S. 436, San Juan County Settlement Implementation
Act
S. 467, Mohave County Federal Land Management Act
S. 468, Historic Routes Preservation Act
S. 614, Recreation and Public Purposes Act
Commercial Recreation Concessions Pilot Program Act
S. 785, Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity
Act
S. 837, Southern Utah Open OHV Areas Act
S. 884, Small Miners Waiver Act
S. 941, Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act
S. 1149, To amend the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act to repeal a provision limiting the
export of timber harvested from land conveyed to the
Kake Tribal Corporation
S. 1230, Water Rights Protection Act
S. 1271, Fowler and Boskoff Peaks Designation Act
S. 1548, Oregon Wildlands Act
Senator Lee. About half of these bills were considered in
this Committee in the last Congress. We are going to update the
record on these bills. The remaining bills have not yet been
considered.
I would like to comment on three of these bills starting
with S. 837, the Southern Utah Open OHV Areas Act, sponsored by
my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch. This bill preserves
recreational access to nearly 20,000 acres in the Hurricane
Sand Dunes in Washington County, Utah. A unique blend of slick
rock terrain and expansive sand dunes makes this an ideal spot
for off-highway vehicle riders, but federal land managers have
significantly, and often unjustifiably, reduced recreational
access in the area over the past two decades. S. 837 will
guarantee that local residents and tourists from across the
country continue to have open access to this land. Apart from
what this bill does, it is also a good example of how federal
land management decisions ought to be made. This bill is the
result of locally-driven collaborative processes that empower
local stakeholders instead of federal bureaucrats. You will
hear more about this bill from Senator Hatch in a few minutes.
The second bill I would like to highlight is S. 1230,
Senator Barrasso's Water Rights Protection Act, which prohibits
federal land managers from requiring water rights transfers as
a condition of granting or renewing permits and leases on
public lands. This bill is necessary to stop federal intrusions
into long-established state water authority and to protect
private water rights from an increasingly aggressive Federal
Government. In recent years, the Forest Service has attempted
to strong-arm farmers and ranchers by threatening to withhold
grazing and other land use permits unless the farmers and
ranchers agreed to give up on the water rights. Moreover, the
Forest Service's 2014 Groundwater Resource Management Directive
sought to usurp state authority over groundwater resources in
the National Forest System. The Forest Service rescinded that
directive, but the agency continues to express a desire for
more control over water resources. The Water Rights Protection
Act would end this unwarranted encroachment on state and
private water rights.
Finally, I would like to highlight S. 468, Senator Flake's
Historic Routes Preservation Act, which establishes a much-
needed process for resolving disagreements over road claims
under R.S. 2477. In 1866, Congress granted public rights-of-way
across federal lands that were not already reserved for other
uses. Many of these roads, known as R.S. 2477 roads, are still
in use today and provide recreational access and economic
opportunities for local communities. However, because the
original law did not require documentation of these roads,
disputes have arisen between local governments and the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) as to who owns the rights-of-way. This
has led to costly drawn-out legal battles in court.
My home State of Utah spent years trying to negotiate with
the Federal Government to settle its R.S. 2477 claims. Its
efforts ultimately failed because the Federal Government forced
the state to prove its claims in court. The state has since
filed 22 lawsuits to settle nearly 12,000 road claims. The
Historic Routes Preservation Act would end this inefficient,
unfair, and wasteful system by giving local governments a well-
defined administrative process to document ownership of their
R.S. 2477 rights-of-way which Congress granted to them over 150
years ago.
I would also like to note that some of the bills before the
Committee today involve various land designations and large
mineral withdrawals. The United States has one of the longest
permitting processes for mining in the world and vast amounts
of federal land are already off-limits. It should come as no
surprise that our country is at least 50 percent import
dependent for 50 minerals and 100 percent import dependent for
20 minerals. This makes little sense when we have been blessed
with an abundance of these minerals right here at home. Before
we withdraw more lands from mining, we should look for
opportunities to open other lands that can be developed safely
and responsibly.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being here as
well as Senator Hatch and Senator Tester, both of whom are here
to talk today about their bills.
We would be turning to Senator Wyden right now for his
opening remarks, but I am not seeing Senator Wyden.
Okay, with that I am going to turn to Senator Barrasso, who
needs to make his opening statement before he has to go chair
another hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Lee.
I appreciate you holding this important hearing.
I want to thank Mr. Casamassa as well as Mr. Ruhs for being
here today to testify.
There are a number of important bills on the agenda and I
would just like to echo what you had said, Mr. Chairman, by
highlighting the bill that I have introduced, the Water Rights
Protection Act.
S. 1230, the Water Rights Protection Act, seeks to protect
Western communities, farmers, ranchers, and people who rely on
privately held water rights for their livelihood from blatant
federal overreach. In recent years, Mr. Chairman, we have seen
the Federal Government repeatedly try to circumvent
longstanding state water law and seize private water rights.
This is absolute federal overreach. It violates private
property rights.
One such example, and you mentioned it Mr. Chairman, that
many of us here today are very familiar with is the Groundwater
Resource Management Plan proposed by the Forest Service in
2014. This plan would have imposed unjust water use
restrictions and denied agricultural and recreational
activities that communities depend upon for their economic
viability. All of this would have been done without receiving
input from the impacted communities. The proposal has since
been withdrawn due to the blatant overreach in authority.
S. 1230 will require any future land use agreements to
recognize states' longstanding authority related to protecting,
evaluating and allocating groundwater resources.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you including S. 1230 on the
hearing agenda today and the schedule, and I look forward to
hearing testimony from the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
I am also told that Senator Daines has another hearing to
go to. Did you want to make a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Wyden for holding this hearing on a very important piece
of legislation for Montana. This is Senator Tester's
Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act.
In fact, as I look at the chart the Senator has brought I
am getting homesick. Chico Hot Springs is where I spent my
senior prom, taking the Griswold station wagon right there back
in 1979. So it is a very special place in Montana. And in fact,
the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness is in the distance. That is
where my wife and I and family spend a lot of time backpacking
on top of some of those peaks that you see in the horizon.
This legislation is important as it would protect an area
in Montana that we call Paradise Valley. It is called Paradise
Valley for a reason. This area is home to some renowned outdoor
recreation opportunities: world-class fly fishing--if you come
by my office you will see me holding a nice, big, brown trout
caught on the river, the Yellowstone River, that runs right by
Chico Hot Springs; hiking; rafting; and hunting. My son killed
his first elk just north of that picture. I can just about see
the hillside it happened on.
[The picture referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Daines. This is a very special place. It is home to
many businesses that serve those that are visiting Yellowstone
National Park and the surrounding area. Simply stated, the
economy in this area thrives on our outdoor way of life.
I am committed to working with Senator Tester and local
stakeholders on this important piece of legislation. My staff
and I have had at least 30 meetings, discussions with
residents, local stakeholders' groups, as well as with Senator
Tester and his team. I thank everyone that has participated in
these meetings. It is important to me that in any major land
decision like this one the local community stands firmly behind
it.
The county commissioners, the local elected officials,
local businesses, and outdoor businesses like the fly fishing
industry support a withdrawal. I can say with confidence that
after the meetings I have had that most all the community does
stand with this idea of a withdrawal.
The opposition to mining in the Paradise Valley contrasts
to support for mines we have in other parts of our state, like
the Montanore and Rock Creek in the northwestern part of
Montana. That is in Lincoln County. Up in that region, on the
other hand, the county commissioners, the local elected
officials, the businesses, and the school system support these
mines. In fact, we have the Stillwater mine. If you look at
that chart, the Stillwater mine actually is adjacent to that
same wilderness area, just a little further to the east and a
little further to the north. It is a major economic driver in
Montana. The mine, sitting immediately adjacent to a wilderness
area, produces platinum and palladium. In fact, it is the only
palladium producer in the U.S. It has wide local and statewide
support and has operated on the edge of this wilderness area
for decades, proving that mines can be environmentally friendly
and enjoy local support. These are high-paying jobs, and it is
important that our state continues to support them.
So in Montana, as I have often said, it is a blend of John
Denver and Merle Haggard. That is the Montana melody. I look
forward to further exploring this legislation later today.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Chairman Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak to a few bills that are on the docket this
morning. And thank you for your leadership on the Subcommittee
for scheduling this hearing.
The first bill that we have before the Subcommittee this
morning on the Alaska side is S. 785. This is the Alaska Native
Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act. This is something that I
have been working on with Congressman Young. He has been
leading on the House side for years, and I have picked this up
over here. Now I am very proud that Senator Sullivan is taking
the lead on it, and I am co-sponsoring it.
Our bill amends legislation that Congress passed back in
1998 to convey land to Alaska Natives who served in our U.S.
military during the Vietnam War. There were many who served who
did not receive the lands that they had been promised under the
1906 Native Allotment Act simply because they were outside of
the country. They could not complete their applications.
We passed the 1998 bill to remedy this problem, but of the
3,000 Alaska Natives who were eligible for lands, there were
only about 243 allotments that have actually been conveyed. And
the delay is due to three issues: first, Alaska Native Veterans
could not select lands unless they had used them for
subsistence for five years prior to passage; second, the Act
did not cover the entire span of the Vietnam War; and third,
lands withdrawn by the Federal Government were not eligible for
selection. So the result then is that you have many Alaska
Native Vietnam Vets that had very few lands to select from and
still decades later have not received their allotments. This is
a difficult inequity that is really hard to comprehend, much
less accept. We have been working with Secretary Zinke on this.
And again, I really applaud Senator Sullivan for the efforts
that he has made to advance this. S. 785 would solve these
problems and properly honor our Alaska Native Veterans for
their service to our country during the Vietnam War.
The second bill, S. 884, is the Small Miners Waiver bill.
What happens is when small miners apply for a waiver from fees
under the Mining Law of 1872, they have no right to appeal if
they lose their claims or if anyone makes a mistake during the
application process. Most federal agencies provide permit
holders notice if they are about to forfeit a valuable right.
For example, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
gives all amateur radio license holders notice when their
permits are about to expire. But at the BLM, if a miner's fees
or their paperwork is even a day late in arriving they forfeit
their claims and, in many cases, this is their livelihoods and
they have no chance for an appeal. I think that this is unfair.
I do not think it was the intent of the claim fee waiver
process that Congress put in place in 1993. That is why my bill
will finally provide our small miners with due process and
reinstate a handful of claims that clearly deserve to be
restored.
The last bill that I want to address is S. 1149 which would
repeal the timber export ban for the Village of Kake in
southeast Alaska. Back in 2000, Congress approved a complex
land exchange involving the Kake Village Native Corporation. In
return for giving up timberlands in the village as watershed,
the corporation was to receive replacement lands plus
compensation to make up the difference in value of the lands
exchanged. At the time, Kake was prohibited from exporting its
timber in order to ensure that there be a timber supply for the
local sawmills. But it is the only Alaska Native Corporation
that is unable to export its timber into higher value markets.
This ban has proven to be unworkable and discriminatory because
the timber the Corporation gained in the land exchange is only
valuable for sale in export markets.
So what we do with this bill is allow Kake citizens to
effectively be treated like all other Alaska Natives to gain
financial benefit for the acreage that they gave back to the
Forest Service. The bill will not harm Alaska jobs in any way.
It just does the right thing by lifting this lone export ban.
Mr. Chairman, I do hope that all of these bills can become
law this Congress. I have letters and statements in support for
all three that I ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record. While I recognize the Administration is still reviewing
the Kake bill, I certainly appreciate its supportive testimony
on our Vietnam Veterans Allotment bill and the Small Miners
Waiver Relief Act.
So again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy this
morning.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Anything you submit will be admitted into the record,
without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Letters and statements in support of the three Alaska bills
to be submitted for the record:
S. 785: Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act:
Statement from Nelson Angapak Sr., representing the
Alaska Federation of Natives
Resolution, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, #2009-85
Resolution, Organized Village of Kake, #2009-06
Resolution, Pilot Point Traditional Council, Sophie
Abyo, Tribal President
Resolution, Native Village of Barrow, lnupiat
Traditional Government, #2009-18
Resolution, Ugashik Traditional Village Council,
#2009-11
Resolution, Traditional Council of Togiak, #2009-06
Statement, Anthony Mallott, representing Sealaska
Native Regional Corp.
Resolution/Letter, Victor Joseph, President, Tanana
Chiefs Conference
Resolution/Letter, Richard J. Peterson, President,
Tlingit & Haida Central Council
Letter, Nels Anderson Jr., veteran, Dillingham
Letter, James Strong, veteran, Haines, Alaska
Resolution, Alaska State Legislature, 2006
Letter, Homer Tobuk, veteran, Allakaket
Letter, Marlys A. Powers, relative of a veteran,
Fairbanks
Letter, Patrick Huff, veteran, Fairbanks
Letter, Nick Monroe, veteran, Nenana
Letter, Theodore D. Suckling, veteran, Tanana
Letter, Harold J. Semaken, veteran, Anchorage
Letter, Michael Littlefield, veteran, Southeast
Alaska
Letter, Percy Hunter Jr., no town given
Letter, Robert D. Mills, Kake
Letter, David A. Bran, former Juneau resident, now
of West Jordan, UT
Letter, James Gray, veteran, Kenai
Letter, John Phillips, veteran, Perryville
Letter, Nick Neketa, veteran, Pilot Point
Letter, Albert Frank, veteran, Venetie
Letter, Roger M. Jones, Native veteran, Oakridge, OR
Letter, John B. Andrews Jr., for Benny Andrews,
Anchorage
Letter, Wayne Huntington, veteran, no home town
given
Letter, Norma J. Williams, sister of veteran Andrew
Williams, no home town given
Letter, Franklin R. Silas, veteran, no home town
given
Letter, George H. Koonaloak, veteran, Point Hope
Letter, Valerie J. Dewey, veteran, Fairbanks
Letter, Sherman A. Thomas, veteran, no home town
given
Letter, Jake E. Morris, veteran, Juneau
Letter, Alfred McKinley Sr., veteran, Juneau
Letter, Frank C. White Sr., veteran, Juneau
Letter, Anthony Gilbert Mills, veteran, Hoonah
Letter, George N. Mills, veteran, Hoonah
Letter, Willis P. Prett, veteran, Hoonah
Letter, Ronald L. Paul Sr., veteran, Hoonah
Letter, Everett J. Glover, veteran, Hoonah
Letter, Ray Henry, veteran, Hoonah
Letter, Frank Parnell, veteran, Hoonah
Letter, John W. Graves, veteran, Juneau
Letter, David White Sr., veteran, Juneau
Letter, James M. Lindoff Jr., veteran, Juneau
Letter, Darrell T. Brown, veteran, Juneau
Letter, Lawrence D. Sifsof, veteran, Dillingham
Letter, Mrs. Jake A. Aloysius Jr., heir of a
veteran, Holy Cross
S. 884: Small Miners Waiver Act:
Statement and backup from John J. Trautner,
Girdwood, Alaska
Email, statement by Michael Kukowski, miner near
Chicken, Alaska
Email, statement by David Kukowski, miner near
Chicken, dated 7-31-17
Email from Vernon Thurneau, miner, The Fortymile
District
Statement from David Guthert, miner, Juneau, (once
translated by Dominic)
S. 1149: Kake Tribal Council Timber Export Ban Repeal:
Letter, testimony, Kake Tribal Corporation, Robert
Mills, CEO, President
Letter, Clarence Maxey, Frontier Inc., Sandpoint,
Idaho
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Senator Tester, go ahead and tell us what you
have to say about this and include with that any pictures of
Senator Daines' prom that you might have included with your
presentation.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. I am afraid they have all been expunged,
Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you for having this hearing and I want to
thank Senator Murkowski, the Chairman, and when Wyden gets here
thank him too and distinguished members of the Committee, thank
you.
I want to give thanks for the comments that Senator Daines
said. I think he laid out this bill very accurately, and I
appreciate his comments.
It is an honor and a privilege to come before you today.
This is an important bill for Montana's local businesses,
especially those involved in the recreation industry, which is
significant.
As you can tell by this picture, it is fair to say that
these kinds of places do not exist just anywhere on Earth. It
is a pretty special place. It is at the doorstep of Yellowstone
National Park and at the headwaters of the Yellowstone River.
A while ago, probably a year ago, the local residents got
wind of two mining companies that were planning to expand
operations a short distance away from the doorstep of
Yellowstone National Park. In fact, you can see where it says
Emigrant Mining District, that is where it is.
This is home, as Senator Daines said, to world-class
fishing, rafting, hiking and hunting, just about anything you
want to do. It is an amazing, amazing area. And it is an
ecosystem like none other in the world.
And so, what does this bill do? And I appreciate your
comments, Mr. Chairman, about importation of minerals but I
will tell you there are some places on Earth we simply should
not mine. This is one of them. There are other places where it
is entirely appropriate.
This legislation will help guarantee that large-scale
mining will never threaten the headwaters of the Yellowstone or
our premier national park in this country, Yellowstone National
Park.
This legislation has broad support from Republicans,
Independents, Democrats, Libertarians, you name it. Why?
Because this is the gateway to the park and it is the
headwaters of the Yellowstone. It creates millions of dollars
in our economy, if not billions of dollars, and helps create a
ton of jobs in the region over the long haul.
There are over four million people who visit Yellowstone
National Park every year. Every one of them spend their hard-
earned money in and around the communities of Yellowstone
National Park, and if we screw up that park with a large-scale
mine, we are not doing justice to the Earth or the people that
live on it.
A picture is worth a thousand words and I just want to
point out to you what we have here. I mean, this is amazing.
[The picture referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Tester. Senator Daines is correct. There is another
mine that does palladium and platinum. It is a zero-discharge
mine, and it is a very good mine. There is no, absolutely no
assurance that that is where we will end up here. We could very
well end up in a situation like we have in Butte, where it is
one of the largest superfund sites. Well, that is arguably one
of the largest superfund sites in the world where it pollutes
the waters downstream for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
miles. And I would tell you, we do not want that because the
impact it will have on Montana is--about $6.4 billion that goes
into our economy every year due to recreation. A good portion
of that comes right out of this region. This is where the mine
would be. This is the Yellowstone River, the headwaters to it.
That said, this is what you do when you are having a bad
day in Montana. The good day is when you pull a fish out of the
water.
No, the truth is anytime you can spend time on a river with
these kinds of waters and this kind of fishing, it's a pretty
special time. And I will tell you--where is the Crevice Mine,
right in here--impact of this is the biggest just outside of
Yellowstone National Park near Gardiner.
[The picture referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Tester. And finally, just the back view of it. This
is a different picture of the first one I showed you, but this
is the view back in where these mines are going to be. And this
is Yellowstone Park over here.
[The picture referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Tester. It is just a magnificent country, I mean,
it is a place you dream about when you are sitting in an office
with no windows, to get out and be able to utilize this area.
And it is why people come to places like Montana, why they
covet places like Montana. If you put a mine here, I guarantee
you it changes this landscape forever whether it is under the
best intentions or not, it changes it.
So the bottom line is this. We have business people, we
have local government-elected officials that say, ``We don't
want this.''
And I would just say to this Committee, as you move
forward, this is not about a mining ban. This is about making
sure that we mine in appropriate places. This is not an
appropriate place for a mine, not at the headwaters of the
Yellowstone River, nor at the doorstep of Yellowstone National
Park.
Thank you very much.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
Senator Heinrich. Senator Lee?
Senator Lee. Yes, Senator Heinrich?
Senator Heinrich. I just want to thank Senator Tester for
his advocacy on this. I had actually hoped to be visiting that
region next week. We are going to be a little busy here on
other business. But it is a place that draws Americans from
every corner because it is so, so darn special and I appreciate
you standing up for it.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator.
If the Senate does their job, you will be able to visit
there in four or five years and it will be the same.
Senator Heinrich. Let's hope it does not take that long.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Senator Tester and Senator
Heinrich.
Okay. I am not seeing Senator Wyden yet and I am not seeing
Senator Hatch, so we will turn to our witnesses now.
Mr. Glenn Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief of the Forest
Service, and Mr. John Ruhs, Acting Deputy Director of
Operations of the Bureau of Land Management. At the end of
their testimonies, we will begin questions. Your full written
testimony will, of course, be made part of the official hearing
record. Please keep your statements, gentlemen, to five minutes
so that we can have time for questions.
We look forward to hearing from each of you and we will
begin with Mr. Casamassa.
STATEMENT OF GLENN CASAMASSA, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Casamassa. Thank you, Chairman Lee and recognizing
Chairman, Senator Murkowski, as it relates to the full
Committee, as well as Senator Wyden, when and if he arrives.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Agiculture (USDA) and the Forest Service
today on a number of bills.
My written testimony has been provided for the record.
To begin with Senate bill 941, the Yellowstone Gateway
Protection Act, I want to emphasize our support for domestic
energy and mineral production as an important use of National
Forest System lands. Mining and energy development is an
important source of jobs and can be a driver of local
economies, especially in rural America. Deploying modern
technology, mineral and energy resources can be developed in
many locations in ways that safeguard environmental
protections. USDA seeks to manage these resources and
activities in balance with other natural resources and economic
drivers found on and around the national forests and
grasslands. The balance is what we sought with the
Administration withdrawal which is currently in process.
S. 32, the California Desert Recreation and Protection Act,
and S. 1548, the Oregon Wildland Act, primarily affect the
Bureau of Land Management and we defer to their views on the
bills as they affect lands under their jurisdiction. For those
wilderness and wild and scenic river designations in each bill
affecting the National Forest, we'd like to work with the
sponsors and the Subcommittee on a few specifics to ensure
implementation would occur successfully and in balance with our
overall, multiple-use mission.
S. 1149 would repeal the provisions in the Kake Tribal
Corporation and Land Transfer Act which prohibit Kake Tribal
Corporation from exporting timber from their lands. The Forest
Service considers our role in this Act to be fully implemented.
The Forest Service does not have a role in Kake Tribal
Corporation's timber sale activities; therefore, we have no
position on the bill. We are providing a statement for this on
the record.
We recognize the significant role played by Charlie Fowler
and Christine Boskoff in American and International
Mountaineering and appreciate the desire to designate two
unnamed mountain peaks in Colorado in their memory. While as a
matter of policy USDA follows the direction of the U.S. Board
on Geographic Names, it does not provide for naming an unnamed
peak within Congressional designated wilderness. USDA does not
oppose S. 1271 based on the contribution of Mr. Fowler and Ms.
Boskoff in this field and the community support for these
designations.
The Historic Routes Protection Act, S. 468, provides for
Administrative resolution for claims of historic rights-of-way
made under a provision from the 1866 Statute. The Forest
Service understands the concerns this legislation is designed
to address and appreciates the work of the bill's sponsors to
craft a method to resolve these claims which, given the
historic nature, can be extremely complicated to verify and
establish. The Forest Service respects legitimate access rights
held by public road agencies and is working to make strides to
improve our service and partnership with state and local
governments in meeting shared public transportation goals using
the many existing authorities we already possess. We look
forward to working with the sponsors and Subcommittee to
address specific items in the bill that could pose
implementation challenges if passed in its current version.
S. 1230, the Water Rights Protection Act, seems to ensure
the Forest Service does not compel holders of state-granted
water rights to convey these rights to the United States or
acquire rights in the name of the United States in order to
secure or maintain land use authorization. The Forest Service
respects the primacy of the states in regulating water
allocations consistent with both federal and state lands and
seeks to be good neighbors and good partners with states,
tribes, communities, water rights holders and the general
public we serve, in helping to sustain water resources on
National Forest lands. That said, we understand the concerns
driving the legislation and believe the primary goal of the
bill is met by prohibiting these two specific actions. Beyond
that, the Forest Service recommends only very specific
amendments to the bill to ensure the land use authorizations
continue to be issued in balance with other resource and social
considerations to provide for responsible multiple-use
management now and into the future.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. And
I look forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Casamassa follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Thank you, sir.
Before we hear from Mr. Ruhs, we see we have Senator Hatch
here now and Senator Hatch is going to now present to us
regarding S. 837.
Senator Hatch.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Lee, today I would like to speak in support of the
Southern Utah Open OHV Areas Act which would establish much-
needed guaranteed protections for recreational access on
roughly 20,000 acres of land in Washington County, Utah.
Down in Washington County, riding off-highway vehicles, or
OHVs, is an integral part of the local culture. It is a way for
the folks to get out and enjoy Utah, enjoy the land, enjoy the
beautiful area, and experience the region's unique geography.
It is a beloved pastime for families in southern Utah, and it
is essential to the region's tourism industry. Just last summer
I had the wonderful opportunity to see firsthand the region's
trails, red rocks, and dunes. In fact, I rode in a dune buggy
all across the famous Hurricane Sand Dunes with Washington
County Sheriff Cory Pulsipher.
Unfortunately, for too long members of the OHV community in
Washington County have had to deal with increased uncertainty
about long-term OHV access. Over time, long-revered paths and
trails have become more restricted, or sometimes even closed,
and locals are left to bear the burden. That is why I
introduced legislation that would give certainty to the OHV
community by ensuring that the most treasured area for OHV
access on the only remaining open OHV area in the entire county
is preserved for future generations.
Most importantly, Chairman Lee, I am proud to say that this
legislation reflects a truly collaborative effort. I am
grateful to you and for the leadership that you provide in
Utah, very much.
My proposal is the combination of extensive discussions
between diverse stakeholders in Washington County that
collectively wish to preserve recreational access in the
Hurricane Sand Dunes by designating it as an open OHV
recreation area.
This type of common ground exists because OHV access is
more than just a priority for the county's recreational
community. According to the County, events and riding in the
Hurricane Sand Dunes also brings in at least $3 million to the
local economy each year and it constitutes a significant
tourist attraction for the region that draws outdoor
enthusiasts from across the country.
I believe the open OHV access is one of the reasons that
Washington County is one of the fastest growing areas of the
United States. But as I mentioned, even as the County grows at
one of the highest rates in the country, access to open OHV
areas is becoming increasingly limited. To protect recreational
access in the Hurricane Sand Dunes now and in the future, I
have worked hard to establish a solution that enjoys the
support of the County, OHV groups, the regional water
conservancy district, and others.
I appreciate the Committee giving fair consideration to
this legislation and providing me the opportunity to speak with
you here today. It is very meaningful to me and, of course, I
hope that we can move this along so that the folks in
Washington County are treated fairly and in accordance with
what their reasonable desires are.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The written statement of Senator Hatch follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch, and thanks
for telling us about the dune buggy. There is nothing more fun
than exploring Utah's lands through a vehicle like that. Thanks
for sharing that with us.
Senator Hatch. If you will excuse me, I am going to head
back to Judiciary.
Senator Lee. Certainly, sir.
Mr. Ruhs.
STATEMENT OF JOHN RUHS, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ruhs. Good morning, Chairman Lee and Chairman
Murkowski, Ranking Member Wyden, and other members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony today.
I will briefly summarize the written statements concerning
the 12 bills on today's agenda related to the Department of the
Interior. In general, we support many of the goals of these
bills and stand ready to work cooperatively with the Congress
as they move forward.
S. 785 would provide to Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans
an opportunity to apply for an individual federal land
allotment in Alaska. The Department supports the goals of the
bill and looks forward to working with the sponsor on resolving
technical issues.
S. 616 establishes a commercial concessions pilot program
for lands covered by the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.
The Department supports the bill's goals and would like to work
with the sponsor on a few modifications, including language
providing the BLM with broad recreation concessions authority.
S. 837 directs a land exchange between the BLM and the
State of Utah and conveys certain BLM-managed lands to
Washington County, Utah. The Department supports the bill's
goals of enhancing outdoor recreation and consolidating land
ownership. Our written testimony outlines the extensive process
by which the agency would conduct an exchange were it not
directed by Congress. Congress can determine alternative
procedures that offer expediency and encompass the needs for
local communities. The Department supports these efforts.
S. 357 would authorize a land exchange between the BLM and
San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District. The
Department supports the bill and would like to work with the
sponsor on a few modifications.
S. 436 allows for the exchange of certain federal coal
leases, authorizes the substitution of Navajo Nation land
selections and designates two wilderness areas in Northern New
Mexico. The Department supports the bill's provisions that
resolve coal leasing and tribal issues.
S. 32 establishes numerous conservation, recreation, and
special management designations, among other provisions. The
Department does not support the bill as currently written
because many of the proposed designations and administrative
provisions could ultimately decrease public access, limit
outdoor recreation, and impede energy development.
S. 1548 establishes two national recreation areas, adds
over 280 miles of Oregon rivers to the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, and establishes new conservation designations on
federal lands in Oregon. The Department does not support the
bill as currently written because the proposed designations
could decrease public access and impede timber management and
harvest.
S. 90 requires the Secretary to commission a gradient
boundary survey along the Red River, directed by the States of
Texas and Oklahoma and in consultation with the tribes. The
Department supports the goal of obtaining certainty about the
location of federal land in relation to adjacent private land.
We would like to work with the sponsor on modifications.
S. 467 directs the sale of BLM-managed lands in Mohave
County, Arizona, that have been identified as potentially
suitable for disposal. The Department supports the bill's goals
and looks forward to working with the sponsor on a few
modifications.
S. 468 aims to establish a procedure for resolving claims
to rights-of-way under R.S. 2477. The Department supports the
sponsor's goal of resolving this issue. We would like to work
with the sponsors on modifications that we believe will
streamline the proposed process.
S. 884 would allow mining claimants a chance to cure their
failure to meet certain required filing deadlines and would
give private relief to a small number of mining claimants. The
Department supports the bill's goal of providing flexibility to
small miners who have missed their filing deadlines and would
welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor on
modifications.
Finally, the Department has submitted a statement for the
record on S. 1230 which reinforces the state's primary
authority over water allocation. The Department supports the
goals of this bill and looks forward to working with the
sponsor to ensure that both private property rights and public
resources are protected.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruhs follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Thanks to both of you for
your testimony.
We will now start with five-minute rounds of questioning,
alternating between Republicans and Democrats, and I will be
going first. Mr. Casamassa, I will start with you.
I continue to be concerned about some of the mixed messages
from the Forest Service when it comes to deference to state
water authority. At a budget hearing last month, we heard Chief
Tidwell say that the agency defers to state water law. And yet,
in the same discussion he indicated that it was appropriate for
the Forest Service to restrict certain water uses in order to
align water management with federal land management plans.
Can you clarify what the Forest Service's position is on
where the agency's jurisdiction ends and where the state's
jurisdiction begins?
Mr. Casamassa. Thank you, Senator, good question.
We recognize that the states have primacy over water rights
associated with the specific states and relative to the law
that's passed and implemented in each specific state.
There is, in order for the Forest Service to ensure that we
can maintain our multiple-use mandate, it is in our interest to
ensure that the water that is used on National Forest System
land could be maintained and stay on National Forest System
land, as part of the overall multiple-use mandate.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Now I want to ask a follow-up question that I will open up
to both of you.
In addition to the conflict that sometimes arises between
federal and state water jurisdiction, there is a long history
of conflicts between federal land managers and private water
users in the West. So I would ask each of you, in your view,
what are some specific institutional changes or regulatory
adjustments that could be made within your respective agencies
to restore trust with western water users? We will start with
you, Mr. Ruhs.
Mr. Ruhs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think, in response to that, I have had a lot of
opportunities to work in the field throughout my career at the
Bureau of Land Management and I have found that over time most
of the problems that we have had with conflicts over water or
other issues can easily be resolved, not easily, excuse me, but
when you sit down with people and you collaborate and you work
together, you can normally find resolution.
And I think from the federal standpoint, we continually
have to make sure that we understand the state water laws and
we have to understand that we're following those laws correctly
and that they apply to the Federal Government as well.
Also, at that same time we have to ensure that we are
protecting the federal resources, that we are protecting those
federal assets that we need to ensure include water rights and
water for wildlife, et cetera.
But together, I think we can easily resolve any conflicts
that come before us. And, I guess, we look forward to
continuing to do that.
Senator Lee. Mr. Casamassa?
Mr. Casamassa. I certainly would agree with where John is
coming from with respect to working out some issues associated
with water disputes at the local level, collaborating with the
various water users on their collection and conveyance system
and where their rights are and where the points of diversion
are with respect to how they want to manage their water, in
conjunction with the state.
I do think that in some respects, perhaps, there are things
that the Forest Service can do. I know that there are some
issues associated with some of our policy that may need to be
clarified in order to, again, as you have alluded to, Senator,
that could build some additional trust to clarify points within
our policies.
Senator Lee. Yes, I appreciate the sentiments that both of
you have expressed. We are talking here about fairly broad
generalizations. Are there any specific policy changes or
specific procedures you think could be adopted?
Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator.
I think that there is reference to potentially some
direction that was provided in letter form in the State of Utah
and Southern Idaho and the State of Nevada that continues to,
perhaps, erode the trust, or not build trust, associated with
National Forest System lands. And I think that if we would take
and rescind that letter while we have--it is just something
that maybe we have to have an overaction to take care of that
letter in order to build trust.
Senator Lee. Okay.
Mr. Casamassa. That would be one example.
Senator Lee. If that letter were to be formally rescinded--
and is that going to happen?
Mr. Casamassa. That is something that if you have asked for
an example of what we could do to establish or continually
build trust, that certainly could be one of the things that we
could do.
Senator Lee. Okay. Alright.
Thank you.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
Mr. Ruhs, as you know, the issues that would be resolved by
the San Juan County Settlement Implementation Act have been
pending for some time. The mineral issues in this bill actually
date back to 1964. I think that puts them at 53 years and still
unresolved.
The Navajo Nation is still waiting for land that they were
promised in 1974 as part of the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act.
That makes them a little more young and spry, only 43 issues,
or 43 years unresolved.
The WSA issue has been unresolved now for 26 years. This is
a bill that is supported by the company that owns the coal
rights. It is supported by the Navajo Nation. It is supported
by the County Commission.
In my view, these issues have been dragged out for a very
long time and we have an opportunity to resolve them once and
for all. Would the BLM prefer litigation to legislation as the
pathway to resolving all of these issues?
Mr. Ruhs. Senator, the BLM would not prefer litigation. We
would certainly like to work together to resolve any concerns
we have with the legislation.
Senator Heinrich. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Ruhs. I was just going to follow up, sir, with the fact
that we are in strong support of resolving the mineral claim
issues as well as the native land selections. And we would like
to work together to review and continue to look at the
wilderness and WSA issues.
Senator Heinrich. The challenge, Mr. Ruhs, is that all of
these issues exist on the exact same land. That is why we have
a challenge today.
We have a preference right lease application on Ah-Shi-Sle-
Pah. We have a WSA on those same lands in Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah. And
we have a Navajo selection. So saying we are going to take
these things apart and not solve them all at once is, I think,
a recipe for another few decades of not resolving these issues.
I think if we do not resolve these issues legislatively,
the likely outcome of that is that we will see litigation. And
they will be resolved with litigation, which would be
unfortunate.
I think we have a situation here where we can keep the
Navajo Nation whole, we can keep the coal company whole, and we
can keep the wilderness whole. But if we do not do those three
things together, I think the deal falls apart and that is why
this legislation is so important.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Casamassa, thank you for being here today. Thank you
for your testimony.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the views of the
local community are very important in any land use decision.
Regarding the Yellowstone Gateway Protection Act, in your
view, did this administrative withdrawal process begin with
local support? And would you agree that the local community
stands squarely behind a withdrawal?
Mr. Casamassa. Thank you, Senator.
I think that, yes, the local community indicated to a large
degree that they were very much supportive of the mineral
withdrawal.
And in addition to that it was--I think that has been
confirmed through the comments that we have received since it
has been noticed in the Federal Register, and the scoping has
continued to come in from the withdrawal proposal. Yes.
Senator Daines. What is the status of the environmental
review on the administrative withdrawal?
Mr. Casamassa. That, at this time, Senator, we have worked
through, again, the noticing of the withdrawal. We have
solicited public comment. In the comment period, we have had
one public meeting. And right now, we are distilling down all
of the comments that we have received and shaping to the degree
the environmental effects analysis associated with the
withdrawal proposal, as well as, potentially, looking at some
alternatives that could be derived from the public comment that
we have received.
Senator Daines. So, you have not yet completed your
analysis?
Mr. Casamassa. No, no, not at this time. We have a two-year
period that we are estimating that we would complete the
analysis in.
Senator Daines. Two years. So when do you expect a final
decision?
Mr. Casamassa. Fall of 2018.
Senator Daines. Okay. What will the environmental
assessment cover?
Mr. Casamassa. Good question.
It is going to cover the mineral, the extent of the mineral
body itself, the economics associated with the mining of that,
the implications associated with that being withdrawn and what
would be forgone in the event of the withdrawal, as well as all
the resource facets associated with air, water, soil, wildlife,
the vegetation, and the recreational opportunities associated
with that particular area.
Senator Daines. So the impact on the outdoor economy would
also be factored into your calculus?
Mr. Casamassa. That is part of what we would look at with
respect to the, I would say, the beneficial impacts to
withdrawing that area from mineral entry.
Senator Daines. Will it be based on sound science?
Mr. Casamassa. Absolutely. And I would add to that both,
not only the resource science but the science associated with
mineral development.
Senator Daines. And when you say that it would analyze the
economics of the mineral ore and physical anomalies of the ore
body and other factors, hypothetically, could the analysis
recommend that the Administration not move forward with the
withdrawal?
Mr. Casamassa. That is always a potential that, you know,
based on the compilation of impacts associated with this
particular proposal that could inform the decision to not
advance the withdrawal.
Senator Daines. How about a partial withdrawal?
Mr. Casamassa. That is potentially part of what could be
uncovered as part of the overall analysis.
Senator Daines. As well as a complete withdrawal of all
30,000 acres?
Mr. Casamassa. That is correct.
Senator Daines. Do you believe that fact and science-based
environmental analysis should drive this process?
Mr. Casamassa. I think, certainly, fact and science-based
analysis, data analysis and information should significantly
inform the decision-making process.
Senator Daines. This legislation withdraws mineral rights,
subject to valid existing rights. If a claimant has valid
rights within a withdrawal area, can a mine be developed?
Mr. Casamassa. Yes.
Senator Daines. What challenges does a withdrawal create to
developing those valid rights, if any?
Mr. Casamassa. In the event that the lands that are part of
the withdrawal are actually withdrawn and they are adjacent to
valid and existing rights, it limits the potential for the
expansion of the development of a mine that goes beyond what is
valid and existing as of this present time.
Senator Daines. So if there is a private inholding where
one is pursuing mineral development, surrounded by withdrawn
federal minerals, how will the development of the mine on
private land be impacted?
Mr. Casamassa. Well certainly it would limit the scope and
scale of the ore body that could be mined.
Senator Daines. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Lee. Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Welcome, welcome, gentlemen. It is good to see both of you.
Mr. Ruhs, welcome to Washington, DC. I look forward to
working with you.
Let me follow up with my colleague, Senator Lee's,
conversation on water rights. I really appreciate the questions
and the conversation.
And let me ask, Mr.--is it Casamassa?
Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator.
Senator Cortez Masto. My new favorite name, Casamassa.
Mr. Casamassa. Mine too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cortez Masto. Senate bill 1230, which is the Water
Rights Protection Act--I did not hear, is this a bill that you
support and if not, why?
Mr. Casamassa. Well certainly we recognize that the
provisions associated with prohibiting the transfer or
acquiring water rights in the name of the Federal Government or
the Forest Service is something that this bill does and you
know, we recognize that.
Senator Cortez Masto. Is that a yes or a no? So, you do
support it or you do not support it or you support it with
changes or----
Mr. Casamassa. Well, we recognize that that's part of the
bill. There are some changes associated with other language in
the bill that we'd like to work with the bill sponsor and the
Committee on.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. Because I saw in your written
testimony that one of the things that you mentioned,
specifically, are sections that impair the Forest Service's
ability to balance the many multiple uses of Forest Service
land. Is that what you are talking about?
Mr. Casamassa. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Cortez Masto. Can you be specific?
Mr. Casamassa. Well, you know, specifically the bill refers
to title, if you will, of water rights as it relates to
potential valid rights which are not perfected at this time
that provides a water rights filer with the ability to be, to a
degree, unencumbered by any kind of authorization when and if
they would be on National Forest System lands.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. So you are willing to work with
everyone to try to address that issue?
Mr. Casamassa. Yes.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Let me jump real quick then to Senate bill 884 and let me
ask this. This is the Small Miners Waiver Act. And just to
verify, Mr. Ruhs, is this a bill that is supported by the BLM?
Mr. Ruhs. Senator, the bill as written, excuse me. The
Department supports the bill, although we would like to work
with the sponsor to make some modifications in it and just
ensure the language meets the intent or the need that we have.
But we do support the bill in general.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you because
obviously, as you well know, Nevada is a mining state. And I do
believe that miners should receive notice and an opportunity to
cure defective claims. So we look forward to working with you
as well.
And then finally, on Senate bill 468, which is the Historic
Routes Preservation Act, and I am going to open this question
up to both of you but let me start with Mr. Ruhs.
You may or may not know this, but NACo, our National
Association of Counties, supports this bill and I believe Nye
County and Lincoln County in Nevada also have an interest in
this bill.
Could this bill help the counties of Nevada meet their
transportation needs? Do you have an opinion on that?
Mr. Ruhs. Senator, I believe that this bill, if we were
able to work with the sponsors and to modify a few parts of it,
would definitely help us resolve some of the issues that we
have. I think it takes a good first step to getting us where we
need to be, and I think that's probably the important thing.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
And could this legislation potentially result in the
privatization of rights-of-way to the detriment of public
lands?
Mr. Ruhs. We believe that's why having that time working
together with the Committee and with the sponsors to make sure
we address some of those concerns, we could avoid having that
happen.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, I appreciate that.
And then finally, Mr. Casamassa, I believe in your written
testimony you mentioned that there is a lack of staff with
expertise in complex historical and legal reviews needed to
evaluate these claims. Can you just elaborate a little bit
more? This is with reference to Senate bill 468.
Mr. Casamassa. Yes, Senator. You know, the claims that are
made under R.S. 2477 are related to the lands that were not
reserved prior to the reservation. And on the National Forest
System lands, most of those lands were reserved in 1905.
Records associated with the, with, say a claim, have to be
prior to 1905. There is no real repository of records. They
need to be gathered up from various sources. Some even have to
be authenticated by historians in order to ensure that there is
a claim that could be valid prior to 1905. So that's an example
of the largest of the tasks associated with making those claims
prior to the reservation.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments today. I look forward to
working with both of you.
Senator Lee. Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
both of you for your service and testimony today.
Mr. Ruhs, I will start with you and a question about one of
the bills before us, Senate bill 1230, broadly speaking.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the legislation, the Water
Rights Protection Act, and I thank the Chairman for bringing
this piece of legislation up for consideration today.
It is a very important bill for Colorado and I commend the
leadership of my Colorado colleague, Scott Tipton, for leading
this effort in the House of Representatives. The House version
of the bill has now passed the House of Representatives, and so
I want to commend Scott Tipton for the great work that he has
done on this to protect Colorado and state water rights.
With Colorado being a headwater state for major river
basins including the Platte, the Rio Grande, the South Platte,
and the Colorado, it is essential that the water rights from
each of these rivers not be put in question by federal
regulatory overreach.
So in the concluding paragraph of your testimony today you
state that you, Mr. Ruhs, recognize Congress' desire to
reinforce state water rights in light of potential federal
overreach.
While I recognize that you brought up some technical points
and concerns about the legislation during your testimony,
broadly speaking though, do you believe that the Water Rights
Protection Act would further clarify and reinforce the
principle that water rights should be decided at the state and
local government level, if the bill were to be enacted?
Mr. Ruhs. Senator, we support the goals of the bill, and we
would like to work with the sponsors and the Committee on the
language that is in it. We feel real comfortable with the House
bill and the way it is worded and the way it presents itself.
And so, we would like to work together to get to that point.
Senator Gardner. Yes, sure.
But do you believe that it would reinforce the principle of
the water rights, which would be decided at the state and local
government level?
Mr. Ruhs. Could you repeat that, sir?
Senator Gardner. Do you think that the bill, broadly
speaking, reinforces the principle that water rights should be
decided at the state and local government levels?
Mr. Ruhs. Yes, sir, and we support that.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Mr. Casamassa, a question for you.
In my time across Colorado forests one concern I hear from
sheriffs and county commissioners continues to be the issue of
law enforcement in our national forests. There have been some
concerns about illegal operations in various parts of
Colorado's forests and we have seen an uptake in some
vandalism, unfortunately, of both National Parks in Colorado
and within the Forest Service.
And so, what can we do to help either give more tools to
local management, local decision-makers, when it comes to law
enforcement or is there something that we need to do from a
resource or personnel perspective to focus more on law
enforcement with the National Forest?
Mr. Casamassa. Yeah, thank you, Senator. And the idea of
the increased use or the--there are increased uses that are
occurring on all of the public lands, primarily in states with
large-scale growth, like Colorado, particularly along the front
range. There are concerns associated with illegal grows on the
Pike and San Isabel National Forests where we find the most
illegal grows in the state.
That said, you know, we are working in cooperation with
local county sheriffs and the states to ensure that we can
provide the appropriate resources across this large, vast
landscape. I know one of the things that we seem to be
effective on is when we do work together and be able to target
specific kinds of uses or abuses and then work in specific
locations on those.
So, you know, right now based on the research that we have
available, we are working, I think, in a somewhat efficient
manner. Certainly there is always room for improvement but
given the resources that are available, the resource demands
that are being placed on the National Forests and the BLM lands
and the national parks, there is just increased concerns
associated with improper use.
Senator Gardner. Let me ask you this, because when I hear
these conversations about illegal grow operations and some of
these activities that are taking place, I hear it from the
sheriff's perspective and I hear it from the county
commissioner's perspective. When you hear it from personnel
within the Forest Service, where does it rank amidst their
concerns? I mean, is this a--is it being blown out of
proportion? Is it a legitimate problem? Is it something that we
are not focusing enough on? How does it--are we getting the
real story?
Mr. Casamassa. Well, and I think it is, certainly, a
problem, not only from the standpoint of an illegal activity
occurring on National Forests, but in the way that that illegal
activity is happening. There is clearly a number of illegal
chemicals that are found in the grows. There is water being
syphoned off of areas that should not have that water being
syphoned off to actually enhance the grows. There are booby
traps. There are all sorts of illegal activities associated
with grows that not only are illegal, but they do have a, there
is a concern over people stumbling across the grows while
people, while the illegal use is occurring that there is a real
concern there, not only from the standpoint of public health
and safety, but the long-term impacts of all of the materials
that are left at these sites.
Senator Gardner. And if you do not mind, Mr. Chairman, if I
could just ask one follow-up?
Are these primarily, you know, Ma and Pa criminal type of
activities or are they more cartel-driven or organized-crime-
type-driven activities?
Mr. Casamassa. It is my understanding that, you know, it
runs, there is a full range of, you know, the complexity and
the sophistication of the grows that are on all the public
lands.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Mr. Casamassa. Sure.
Senator Lee. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
I want to apologize to all our guests because I am involved
in managing the health care bill on the Floor.
I would also like to note that, having served on this
Committee for around 20 years now, this is the hottest it has
ever been in this Committee room. So I am not going to ask
colleagues to engage in debate about climate change, but as far
as this Committee room is concerned, certainly that ought to be
noted.
The Oregon Wildlands Act is a piece of legislation that I
care particularly about because it takes several wilderness and
wild and scenic provisions from a separate bill that I have
authored, and we have appreciated the Forest Service's interest
in this.
The Committee passed the lands designation out of Committee
as part of my Oregon-California bill in 2014. They did not
become law. My view is, it is far past time to actually turn
them into law and I am going to pull out all the stops until
these fragile landscapes get the protection that they deserve.
And it is an especially important time to move ahead with these
types of protections. The present Interior Department is
reviewing public lands designations in my state now, and
Oregonians want to make sure that there is a bright future for
their treasured public lands.
Maintaining and improving access to public lands is not
just for this generation, but for the generations to come. And
this legislation builds on the success that we have seen in
protecting public lands. It is going to protect the Devil's
Staircase on the Oregon Coast. This is home to one of the last
old growth forests on the Oregon Coast mountain range. It
protects more than 100,000 acres as national recreation areas.
It designates hundreds of miles of best-known fishing streams
as wild and scenic.
We have a remarkable range of landscapes and the reality is
that recreation is an engine, an economic engine now, for our
country, for hikers, climbers, hunters, anglers, and everyone
in between. And I think my colleague from Utah knows this just
like we know it in Oregon.
We have been working on an important piece of legislation.
We will have some more to say about it here fairly shortly,
called the RNR bill, the Recreation Not Red-Tape Act, and this
Oregon Wildlands package is going to help advance this
objective.
Last Congress, the Committee received more than 20 letters
supporting the bill from every corner of Oregon, and we have
built the coalition involving conservation, fish and wildlife
experts, and constituents who particularly want to be outdoors.
They are the men and women who care about outdoor sports. This
legislation responds to them.
One last point, Mr. Chairman, if I might.
There is another bill on the agenda, S. 468, which
establishes a new process for creating rights-of-way across
federal lands. This bill has enormous implications throughout
the West and, I think it would be fair to say, is a change in
decades of legal precedent.
I have heard from folks at home who are concerned about the
effect this would have on bedrock land protections and that it
could also, depending on how it's interpreted and the exact
words, threaten the protection of national monuments, National
Forest lands and much of the National Park System and public
lands run by the Bureau of Land Management.
I want to be clear to my colleagues that I am interested in
working on all legitimate issues relating to rights-of-way
claims across federal lands. We ought to identify them. We
ought to resolve them, but I continue to be concerned about
establishing a sweeping new policy that could raise serious
questions about the protection for special places.
Mr. Chairman, again, my thanks for your help on including
the Oregon Wildlands Act on the hearing agenda. I look forward
to working with you, Mr. Chairman, on the whole package of
bills. And it will be interesting to see whether the
temperature in this room reverts to this big historic tradition
of being just about colder than most days in Lisa Murkowski's
home state.
So I thank you and look forward to working with you.
Senator Lee. We will try to bring a little bit more of
Alaska into this room to make sure that it is a little bit less
tropical.
Thank you, Senator Wyden, for your comments on that.
I do want to point out, with respect to R.S. 2477 roads,
the question here is about ownership. This is not a proposal.
The legislation that you referenced is not something that would
change federal policy in the sense that the federal policy at
issue was adopted in a statute, Revised Statute 2477, or R.S.
2477, back in 1866. It created ownership rights. This
legislation to which you are referring is one that would create
a process whereby ownership claims could be facilitated because
they have been dragged forward and almost by inaction by the
Federal Government.
Often valid ownership claims have been dismissed or have
been neglected resulting in a cloud of title and resulting, in
many instances, in access that is needed by the residents of,
or visitors to, many states throughout the country, especially
in the western United States, in states like the State of Utah
where I live.
This is their land. I mean, an R.S. 2477 right-of-way is an
ownership interest. It is one that is held by the state. In my
state it is jointly held by the state and the county, but to
say that you are creating a sweeping change in federal policy
simply by establishing a procedure whereby those claims can be
established, facilitated, and discussed with the Federal
Government, that is not accurate to describe that as a sweeping
change to federal policy. That policy was established in 1866
with the passage of R.S. 2477. Now 110 years later in 1976,
with the passage of FLPMA, that policy changed but that policy
change was made non-retroactively such that legitimate land
claims established pursuant to R.S. 2477 between 1866 and 1976
are, in fact, valid claims. So I just wanted to set the record
clear on that.
These are, moreover, not merely hypothetical interests that
are at stake. For many residents of the State of Utah, their
ability to recreate, their ability to access their own land,
their ability to get from one part of the state to another part
of the state, to get to where their cattle graze, to get to
where their farms are, where their businesses happen to be
located, it may, in many instances, depend on a R.S. 2477
right-of-way. In many instances, a significant part of a
county's road system, its transportation network, will be built
on R.S. 2477 rights-of-way.
So these are not merely academic issues. These are things
that are part of the way of life of people throughout the
western United States, especially in my state. The people who
depend on these rights-of-way deserve to have their claims
heard. And the American people need to have these things
decided, especially given a comment someone made earlier in
this hearing, given that the longer we go, given the passage of
time that has occurred between the enactment of FLPMA and
today, the ability to establish or refute the existence of a
R.S. 2477 right-of-way can grow more difficult over time. All
the more reason why we ought to establish procedures whereby we
can have the government acknowledge valid claims where they
exist.
Mr. Ruhs, in your written testimony, you noted that there
has been a dramatic reduction in land that is accessible to the
OHV community in Washington County, Utah, that is in the
southwestern corner of the State of Utah, since 1999. The OHV
industry is, of course, a key economic driver for local
communities in that part of the state. The Sand Mountain
Special Recreation Management Area alone generates $3 million
in economic activity every year. Not surprisingly, the County
is eager to preserve what is left in their open OHV areas which
is why the county commission recently passed a resolution
supporting S. 837.
So can you tell me, sir, what is the BLM doing to preserve
OHV and other recreational access areas on public lands in
Washington County?
Mr. Ruhs. Senator, I do not have the specifics on what BLM
is doing in Washington County, but I can tell you on a whole,
we are trying to work together with the communities to ensure
that we provide recreation access and that we ensure the
ability of the OHV community and others to be able to access
the public lands and to utilize those resources that are
available. I think that is one of the most important things to
this department as well as to the BLM is ensuring public access
and those recreation opportunities.
Senator Lee. So can I get a commitment from you that you
will work with local officials to increase access to
recreational opportunities in the county?
Mr. Ruhs. Certainly, Senator, you have my personal
commitment.
Senator Lee. Thank you, sir.
Okay, I have no additional questions. And in light of that,
I want to encourage any members to submit follow-up, written
questions for the record. The record for this hearing will
remain open for two weeks.
I want to thank both of you and the other witnesses who
have come today and provided testimony.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:57 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]