<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:29946.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-582
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL FOREST BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 2466
TO AUTHORIZE AND DIRECT THE EXCHANGE AND CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN NATIONAL
FOREST LAND AND OTHER LAND IN SOUTHEAST ARIZONA
S. 2567
TO MAINTAIN THE RURAL HERITAGE OF THE EASTERN SIERRA AND ENHANCE THE
REGION'S TOURISM ECONOMY BY DESIGNATING CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS AS
WILDERNESS AND CERTAIN RIVERS AS WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
S. 2788
TO DIRECT THE EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN LAND IN GRAND, SAN JUAN AND UINTAH
COUNTIES, UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
MAY 24, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-946 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Bruce M. Evans, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
Scott Miller, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Andrews, John W., Associate Director, Utah School and
Institutional Trust Lands Administration....................... 34
Bennett, Hon. Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah.................. 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator From California................ 7
Calvert, Chad, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management, Department of the Interior......................... 10
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator From California............. 9
Hing, Michael, Mayor of Superior, AZ............................. 24
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Department
of Agriculture................................................. 17
Kamala, Laura, Director of Utah Programs, Grand Canyon Trust,
Castle Valley, UT.............................................. 30
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Arizona......................... 3
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'', U.S. Representative From
California..................................................... 10
Williams, Bill, Vice President, Health, Safety, Environment and
Construction, Resolution Copper Company, LLC, Phoenix, AZ...... 27
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 45
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 53
MISCELLANEOUS NATIONAL FOREST BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon. I want to welcome all of our
witnesses who are here to testify today. While we only have a
few bills to take testimony on, I see we have a lot of
witnesses who are here to help us understand the strengths and
the weaknesses of these bills.
It appears we are going to have three panels today. I first
will call our Senate panel. Senator Kyl is with us to testify
on S. 2466, the Southern Arizona Land Exchange; Senator Barbara
Boxer is here to testify on S. 2567, the Hoover Wilderness
expansion proposal; and Senator Robert Bennett is here to
testify on S. 2788, the Utah Recreational Land Exchange.
I'll then ask the administration to come forward to testify
on all three bills. I want to thank Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief
of the Forest Service for the National Forest System, and Chad
Calvert, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Mineral
Management at the Department of the Interior, who are with us
today.
And finally, we have five witnesses who are here to testify
on two bills I have already mentioned. We have Michael Hing,
mayor of the town of Superior, AZ; along with Mr. Bill
Williams, vice president for health and safety, environment and
construction, from Resolution Copper Company, both here to
testify on S. 2466, the Southern Arizona Land Exchange bill
that Senator Kyl has introduced.
Well, with no particular order in mind, I guess we'll start
and work our way across the table.
Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. BENNETT, U.S. SENATOR
FROM UTAH
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
your consideration and for your attention to these bills. You
are no stranger to the issue of School Trust Lands in Western
States. The question of trying to consolidate the School Trust
Lands into economically viable clusters and at the same time
turn over intelligent management to the Federal agencies that
manage the land around the School Trust Lands is one that has
been going on virtually all of my life.
When my father was the Senator from Utah, first elected in
1950, he sponsored some land exchange bills. They didn't get
very far. The process continued when Scott Matheson, the
Democratic Governor of the State of Utah made a significant
effort to try to get things done in terms of land exchange.
That didn't go very far. This has a long history. We finally
broke through with the assistance of Secretary Babbitt,
Governor Levitt and this Congress. We got some land exchanges
going and we want to keep that going. And I believe that S.
2788, the bill that I have proposed along with Senator Hatch,
will accomplish that purpose.
The legislation represents the consensus and compromised
views across the State of Utah. Local communities, the
recreation community, the environmental community have all had
input into this bill, and as far as I know, all have support
for the bill. Given the historical controversy over land use
bills in Utah, that's saying something, to get that kind of
consensus. It directs the exchange of approximately 40,000
acres of land that is currently under BLM management for the
same number of acres that are currently under SITLA management.
SITLA stands for the School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration, and as you know, all of the trust lands are, by
law, set aside for use for Utah schools.
The final valuation will be made with an appraisal process
to make sure that it is, in fact, an equal value exchange that
fulfills the mandates of the BLM. The land exchange will
consolidate BLM ownership of the wilderness area and several
wilderness study areas and also land along the Colorado River
corridor. These areas contain nationally recognized scenic
vistas and some significant archeological and historic
resources, along with the recreation lands that are enjoyed by
hundreds of thousands of people every year. The bill provides
what I believe is a common-sense way to value the minerals that
are located in the lands to be exchanged. It contemplates the
uncertainty involved with mineral appraisal and gives
assurances that the public will not be shortchanged by an
under-valuation of these lands.
I can go into the detail of how that is done, if you
prefer, but basically, it holds the Federal Government harmless
if, at some future time, some magnificent windfall is
discovered in some of these lands that are exchanged and the
State of Utah would pay the Federal Government at some point in
the future.
Senator Craig. Well, Bob, I have reviewed that and I find
it unique and I think very equitable. I think it's creative on
your part, and everyone involved, on how to handle values. It
certainly offsets the phenomenal difficulty of attempting to
appraise and understand values that may not be there now, but
could be there in the future.
Senator Bennett. We were determined to try to slay that
particular dragon because too often land exchange bills have
been held up over the valuation issue. And we thought if we
could solve that, then we could get on with that which
everybody thinks is in the best interest of Utah's school
children as well as the Land Management Agency. So, Mr.
Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and hope
that the committee will look favorably upon our effort.
Senator Craig. Surely, you and any of the other Senators
who want to stay, who might want to ask questions of the
administration, feel free to do so. We have some questions and
we'll pursue them, but thank you. Now let me turn to----
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave you my
proxy.
Senator Craig. I'll use it wisely. Thank you.
Senator Kyl.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
thanking you for chairing this subcommittee. You have enormous
responsibility that affects millions of people in the western
United States in particular, and as you noted from this full
room here today, there are a lot of people who are counting on
action on the legislation that's been introduced here, and I
appreciate your attention to it and that of your staff and that
of the minority as well.
You noted that we are going to hear testimony later from
Mayor Hing of Superior and Bill Williams of the Resolution
Copper Company with respect to the land exchange in the State
of Arizona that will involve the Resolution Copper Company.
Just a note at the outset. My full statement will be in the
record, but the bill before you, as is usually the case here,
has been the result of painstaking negotiation and compromise
by all of the affected interests and I can tell you that the
Federal--and I also thank the Federal Government officials,
some of whom will be here today, they've worked very closely
with the sponsors of this. They will testify, I believe, in
support, but with some recommendations of things that will need
to be modified. We'll continue to work with them, of course, on
those matters.
But it also has the support of the Governor of the State of
Arizona, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, the Supervision
Area Land Trust--Superstition Area Land Trust, Arizona Game and
Fish Department and the Access Fund, just to name a few. And I
will ask that both their statements and a resolution of the San
Carlos Apache Tribe be included in the record.
I met with representatives of the San Carlos Apache Tribe
for the first time yesterday. They expressed to me that they
have some issues, some cultural and historic issues with this
land exchange. I hope to be able to continue to work with them,
but their resolution should be a matter of interest to the
committee as well.
Just briefly, this involves a little over 3,000 acres of
land, commonly called Oak Flat, which is controlled by the
Forest Service near the town of Superior. That will be traded
to the Resolution Copper Company, which hopes to explore and
develop a significant, very deep copper mine under that land.
They, in turn, will provide to the U.S. Government, the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior over 5,500 acres of
very environmentally significant land, land which, for example,
includes a riparian area of the San Pedro River, which is a
nationally recognized migratory bird corridor, a very high
value riparian habitat for endangered and threatened species,
the largest, last remaining, mesquite bosk in Arizona,
magnificent canyons and forests that are home to other wildlife
and game species. And there's a variety of environmental groups
that have long advocated for the acquisition for the public of
these lands, including the Sonoran Institute, the Nature
Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands and Arizona Audubon.
The requirement for the transfer of the land is partially
because Resolution Copper not only believes there is perhaps
one of the largest ore bodies ever discovered in the United
States or in North America underlying this land, but right now,
the land patterns in the area are, as is frequently the case,
checkerboarded. It lies within a mining district. It's adjacent
to and intermingled with Resolution Copper's existing private
land and the Magma Mine, which is in the same vicinity. And 75
percent of it is blanketed with un-patented mining claims that
are held by Resolution.
So, this can minimize the conflict between the public and
the private use of that, as well as provide an enormous asset
to the Federal Government in over 5,500 acres of these
environmentally sensitive lands. One of the most interesting
features is a place called Apache Leap on the west side of Oak
Flat. The stories may be apocryphal, but they dealt with large
numbers of Apache, particularly women and children, leaping off
the cliff to avoid capture by the people who were pursuing
them. There is a great deal of obsidian at the bottom and those
are thought to be the tears of the Apache who cried at their
fate.
The campground there is going to be replaced at Resolution
Copper's expense and the town of Superior will have the
opportunity to acquire about 200 acres to include the town's
cemetery and land near its airport for expansion there. There
will also be recreation and public purpose conveyance of about
2,000 acres from the BLM to the Arizona Parks Department for
the creation of a new State park, which focused on rock
climbing. And this is one of the more innovative solutions to a
problem that was brought to the attention of the copper company
when rock climbers indicated that this was one of the world
class rock climbing areas and they did not want to be denied
access to the area. Well, they were provided some limited
access to the area and an expert was brought in and identified
another area that will be perhaps equally good and that will be
developed as part of the State park so that the rock climbers
will continue to have access to first class climbing
opportunities.
Just a note about the appraisals. As Senator Bennett noted,
we're well aware of the need to make absolutely certain that
the public receives its fair benefits, and as a result the
usual appraisal standards for Federal land acquisitions and
uniform standards of professional appraisal practice will be
applied here. There are also a couple of innovative things that
are done to appraise the Federal land as if encumbered by--or I
should say, excluding the encumbrance of the mining claims that
would devalue the property.
So, it's going to be as if those potential easements--the
conservation easement and the mining claims--are not a factor,
so that the full value of the Federal land will be determined
and it is that value that will be put against the land that the
Resolution Copper Company will be offering up to the Federal
Government.
I know that you will have other questions Mr. Chairman, but
this is one of those great win-win-win situations for everybody
within the State, and I look forward to working with the
committee to answer any questions or work out any issues that
may come up in the future. But we're very, very pleased that
all of the parties have gotten together and offered such a
great opportunity for improvement in the State of Arizona.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kyl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator From Arizona, on S.
2466
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify regarding S. 2466, the Southeast Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act of 2006. I introduced this bill, on
behalf of myself and Senator McCain, in late March. It is a modified
version of S. 1122, which we introduced in May of last year under the
same title. This bill directs an important land exchange in our home
state of Arizona. It is the culmination of negotiation with federal,
state, and local officials, community, recreation, and conservation
groups and other stakeholders. It will allow for the protection of some
of the most environmentally sensitive lands in Arizona, enhance outdoor
recreation opportunities, and provide a much-needed economic engine for
the people of Superior, Arizona and the surrounding communities.
Let me briefly lay out the details. The exchange conveys
approximately 3,025 acres of land controlled by the Forest Service to
Resolution Copper Company. The acreage commonly called ``Oak Flat''
will to be traded to Resolution Copper to facilitate future
exploration, and possible development, of a large copper ore deposit
discovered some 7,000 feet below the surface. Oak Flat is intermingled
with, or abuts, private lands already owned by Resolution Copper
Company. Approximately 75 percent of the Oak Flat federal parcel is
already blanketed by unpatented mining claims. Given the ownership
patterns; the public safety issues that may be associated with mining
activities, and the significant investment Resolution Copper must make
to even determine whether development of a mine is feasible, it makes
sense, Mr. Chairman, for Resolution to acquire the entire mining area.
However, we also recognize that there are resource values
associated with Oak Flat that would come into private ownership and, to
the extent we can, we should protect and or replace these resources.
This bill accomplishes that goal.
The Apache Leap Escarpment, a spectacular cliff area and important
cultural resource site comprising approximate 562 acres on the western
side of the federal parcel, is an area deserving of protection. The
bill requires that a permanent conservation easement be placed over
this area protecting the surface from mining and development.
The Oak Flat Campground, consisting of 14 rustic tent/RV sites, is
located on the north side of the parcel, adjacent to U.S. Highway 60.
Recognizing that the campground is used by the community and others, we
are requiring that this campground be replaced on the Globe Ranger
District at Resolution Copper's expense. Public access to this
campground will not immediately terminate on enactment of the
legislation: The bill allows for continued public access to the
campground for two years after enactment.
We also heard from the public that climbing and bouldering were
important recreational resources at the site. For this reason, we
included a placeholder in S. 1122 for additional climbing provisions as
a good faith offer to the climbing community to work with us and the
proponent of this land exchange, Resolution Copper Company, to address
the loss of public access to climbing at Oak Flat in a way that does
not compromise public safety. I am happy to announce that discussions
over the last eight months have been fruitful. Some of the climbing
will remain open at Oak Flat temporarily and climbing areas on
Resolution Copper's private land will be accessible through a license
agreement executed by Resolution Copper and Access Fund, a national
advocacy climbing organization. Access Fund has formally endorsed the
exchange as a result.
I am also pleased to report that representatives of Resolution
Copper, working in cooperation with climbers and federal land managers,
have found an additional climbing gem about 20 miles from Oak Flat,
near Hayden and Kearny, Arizona in the Tam O'Shanter Mountains.
``Tamo,'' as it is now nicknamed, has the quality of rock and the
elevation and diversity of cliffs, climbing walls, and boulders that
rock climbers seek. Couple these characteristics with Arizona's mild
weather and this site has the potential to be a four season climbing
destination and tourism draw for Arizona.
Recognizing this potential, Arizona State Parks, Resolution Copper,
and the Bureau of Land Management, in cooperation with the communities
and other mining interests, have been working together on a proposal to
turn ``Tamo'' into Arizona's newest state park. This proposed state
park would place a special emphasis on rock climbing, but would also
have opportunities for camping and other outdoor recreation.
To turn ``Tamo'' into a state park is not an easy task. Currently,
Arizona State Parks lacks the legal authority to acquire ``Tamo,'' but
it is seeking it through the Arizona state legislature. I am pleased to
report that a state bill containing this authority is working its way
through the Arizona state legislature and has the overwhelming support
of the Sierra Club, Access Fund, and ASARCO, a mining company operating
in the vicinity. The stakeholders tell me this issue and others
concerning access to the site are close to being resolved. For this
reason, the bill includes language that would facilitate a recreation
and public purposes conveyance of ``Tamo'' to Arizona State Parks. This
conveyance, of course, would be subject to solving these issues.
In return for conveying the federal land to Resolution Copper, the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management will receive eight parcels
of private land, totaling 5,539 acres. These parcels have been
identified, and are strongly endorsed for acquisition by the Arizona
Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, Sonoran
Institute, Arizona Game and Fish Department and numerous others. They
include lands along the San Pedro River, an important internationally
recognized migratory bird corridor, riparian and wetland habitat for
threatened and endangered animal and plant species, including the
southwestern willow flycatcher and the hedgehog cactus, and magnificent
canyons and forest that are home to big game species. Most of the
parcels are in holdings that will allow for more effective management
of the federal land. It is in the public interest to bring these
conservation lands into federal ownership for the enjoyment of future
generations.
Although the focus of this bill is the land exchange between
Resolution Copper and the United States, it also includes provisions
allowing for the conveyance of federal lands to the town of Superior.
These lands include the town cemetery, lands around the town airport,
and a federal reversionary interest that exists at the airport site.
These lands are included in the proposed exchange to assist the town in
providing for its municipal needs and expanding and diversifying its
economic development.
Though I have described the many benefits of the exchange, Mr.
Chairman, you may be asking why we are legislating this land exchange.
There are many reasons, but I would like to highlight a few: First and
foremost, as this exchange is assembled it can only be accomplished
legislatively. The Forest Service does not have the authority to convey
away federal land in order to acquire private land outside the
boundaries of the National Forest System no matter how ecologically
significant. Second, this bill provides additional safeguards to ensure
this land exchange is fair and in the pubic interest.
I will highlight some of the bill's safeguards: First, it requires
that all appraisals follow standard federal appraisal practice and be
performed in accordance with appraisal standards promulgated by the
U.S. Department of Justice. All appraisals must also be reviewed and
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture. Second, to ensure that the
United States gets full value for the federal parcel it is exchanging,
the federal parcel will be appraised to include the copper ore and
appraised as if unencumbered by Resolution Copper's mining claims,
which would detract from the market value of the land. This is
significant given the fact that 75 percent of the land is encumbered by
mining claims. Third, the Apache Leap Conservation Easement is
expressly not included in determining the value of the federal land,
preventing any possibility that this easement would further devalue the
federal land. I believe by following the standard appraisal practices
and including these safeguards in the valuation process, the United
States, and ultimately the taxpayer, will receive full value for both
the land and the minerals it contains.
I also want to note that I met with the San Carlos Apache Tribe
yesterday. For the first time, the Tribe expressed to me that they have
Apache cultural practices and traditions associated with portions of
the Oak Flat federal parcel that they are concerned may be affected by
this land exchange. I will work with the Tribe to try to find common
ground to address these concerns.
With enactment of this legislation, we can preserve lands that
advance the important public objectives of protecting wildlife habitat,
cultural resources, the watershed, and recreation opportunities, while
generating economic and employment opportunities for state and local
residents. It is advantageous to our environment and for our economy.
Thank you again for holding this hearing and extending to me the
opportunity to testify.
Senator Craig. Well, Jon, thank you very much for bringing
this to the committee. We will continue to work with you as we
work with the administration to sort out any difficulties on
the margins we may have before we move this legislation. Again,
thank you.
And now let me turn to Senator Barbara Boxer. Senator Boxer
brings to us almost an anomaly. And I say that with a smile on
my face, Barbara, because rarely does an environmental, or if
you will, a wilderness bill come before this committee without
controversy. And my staff tells me that it is, as best we can
tell, without, at the moment, controversy. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. I just want to say to you
and your staff thank you so much for all the work you do with
us--not just on this, but on so many other issues--and I wanted
to thank you particularly for your work on the Northern
California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act, which the
Senate passed with your leadership, and we're just waiting for
the House to act. It's another one of those bills that is, as
Jon Kyl says, a win-win, because it's not controversial.
And let me quickly say, I would like to put my full
statement in the record.
Senator Craig. Without objection, it'll become a part of
the record.
Senator Boxer. I'm going to be very brief, but I do want to
lay out a few wonderful things and show you some beautiful
pictures. This is S. 2567, a bill introduced by myself and
Senator Feinstein. It's called the Eastern Sierra Rural
Heritage and Economic Enhancement Act.
Senator Craig. Very creative.
Senator Boxer. Yes. Because, as you know, in your State as
well as mine, beautiful areas attract tourism, and tourism is
really one of our greatest economic businesses in California.
In April, I introduced this bill with Senator Feinstein,
and then Representative Buck McKean, whose congressional
district contains these special lands, introduced the companion
bills. So this is a breakthrough because this is bipartisan.
Buck is a Republican and Diane and I are Democrats, in case you
weren't aware of that, Mr. Chairman. And what is so wonderful
is we have the administration on our side as well. So, it's all
very good.
What I want to do is show you some of these treasures, just
for our fun, just to show you what we're looking at protecting.
Here's our first picture. The bill makes considerable
additions to the existing Hoover Wilderness Area which border
on Yosemite National Park. These additions will protect the
stunning High Sierra landscape of 11,000-foot snow-capped peaks
and valleys, lush meadows and deep forest that people around
the world associate with the eastern Sierra.
They're home to an abundance of wildlife, including--that
is breathtaking--including black bear, mountain lion, mule
deer, water fowl and bald eagles. This land provides much more
than just visual beauty, however, it is a recreational
paradise. Here is one of those happy recreators going fishing
here.
Year after year, hikers enjoy the approximately 9 miles of
the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail that runs through the
wilderness. Fishing anglers enjoy the clear lakes and streams
that support a number of species of wild trout. The bill
protects areas adjacent to the Emigrant Wilderness Area
including another 2 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail.
And then the legislation designates about 24 miles of the
Amargosa River as a wild and scenic river and here you see
pictures of that. The only river flowing into Death Valley, the
Amargosa is an ecologically important river in a very dry
desert region. We can see the birds, the bird watchers abound
in the area, coming from far and wide. So, I guess our last
picture--I think if anyone ever questioned God's greatness, all
they have to do is look at these photographs. Thank you, Jeff,
very much for that.
Senator Craig. That's spectacular.
Senator Boxer. I know, it's just breathtaking, so we want
to protect it forever, Congressman McKean, Diane and I, and I
hope all of us here today. What a great, great heritage it
would be for us.
The last thing I want to do is just put some statements in
the record with your permission. I'll tell you what they are.
The statement of Representative Buck McKean, the resolution of
support from the Mono County Board of Supervisors, the
resolution of support from the Inyo County Board of
Supervisors, a letter of support from the mayor of Mammoth
Lakes, a list of 171 local businesses who support this bill,
and here's the best one, I saved it for last for you, Mr.
Chairman, a resolution of support from the Mono County
Republican Central Committee. I thought it would make you
smile.
Senator Craig. I'll have to check out the legitimacy of
that one.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. We have so much support. We are thrilled to
be here. And, again, we want to just thank you and your staff
for your willingness to work with us. I look forward to
celebrating when we all know that this is preserved for our
grandkids and their kids and their kids.
[The prepared statements of Senators Boxer and Feinstein
and Representative McKean follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From California,
on S. 2567
Thank you, Chairman Craig. Let me begin by thanking you for your
great work on the Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness
Act you and your staff have been very helpful over the last few years
on that effort and helped assure a swift Senate passage last year.
Today, I want to talk about a very special place--the Eastern
Sierra--and a very special, bipartisan, bicameral, administration
supported effort--``the Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic
Enhancement Act.''
In April, I introduced this bill with Senator Feinstein.
Representative Buck McKeon, whose congressional district contains these
special lands, introduced the companion bill in the House.
This bill will provide protection for thousands of some of the most
pristine, wild, and beautiful acres in California's wild Eastern
Sierra.
I would like to take a few moments and show you some of these
natural treasures.
CHART--HOOVER My bill makes considerable additions to the existing
Hoover Wilderness areas, which border on Yosemite National Park.
CHART--HOOVER These additions will protect the stunning High Sierra
landscape of 11,000 foot snow-capped peaks and-valleys, lush meadows
and deep forests that people around the world associate with the
Eastern Sierra.
CHART--HOOVER These areas are also home to an abundance of
wildlife, including black bear, mountain lion, mule deer, waterfowl,
and bald eagles.
CHART--HOOVER--HIKER This land provides more than just visual
beauty however, it is also a recreational paradise.
Year after year, hikers enjoy the approximately nine miles of the
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail that runs through this wilderness.
CHART--HOOVER--FISHING Anglers enjoy the clear lakes and streams
that support a number of species of wild trout.
The bill will also protect areas adjacent to the Emigrant
Wilderness area, including another two miles of the Pacific Crest
Trail.
CHART--AMARGOSA My legislation will also designate about 24 miles
of the Amargosa River as a Wild and Scenic River.
CHART--AMARGOSA As the only river flowing into Death Valley, the
Amargosa is an ecologically-important river in a dry desert area.
CHART--AMARGOSA Birds and birdwatchers abound in this area, both
coming from far and wide to enjoy the river.
In short, Mr. President, these places are not just California's
natural treasures, they are America's natural treasures.
And that is why they deserve the highest level of protection
possible. That is what this bill does.
I was proud to include most of these lands in my California Wild
Heritage Act that I reintroduced in March of this year.
I thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward to working
with you and all my colleagues, to protect these special places
forever.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator From
California, on S. 2567
I want to thank the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee for
considering S. 2567, the Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic
Enhancement Act. I am proud to serve as an original cosponsor of this
important legislation along with my colleagues Senator Boxer and
Congressman Buck McKeon. I want to commend Senator Boxer and
Congressman McKeon for their leadership on this issue.
This legislation expands the Hoover and Emigrant wilderness areas
in Mono County and provides wild and scenic status for portions of the
Amargosa River in Inyo County. Notably, this bill is a product of
extensive local discussions resulting in broadly supported local
agreements.
In the Eastern Sierra in Mono County, Congressman McKeon brought
together local stakeholders to resolve a longstanding land use dispute
in this beautiful portion of his Congressional District. The result was
an agreement between local snowmobilers and local wilderness advocates
that is unanimously supported by the Mono County Board of Supervisors.
In Inyo County, local residents worked with the County Board of
Supervisors to develop a plan to permanently protect the natural values
of the Amargosa River, a spectacular and rare desert river. Again, the
legislation reflects the proposal approved by the Inyo County Board of
Supervisors.
The Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management have long
recommended the land and river in this legislation for wilderness and
wild & scenic designations, respectively. As such, these areas are
already managed in a manner consistent with the wilderness and wild &
scenic designations the legislation provides. This reassures me that
grazing, horsepacking, and currently allowed recreational activities
will be unaffected by this legislation.
Before supporting any wilderness legislation, I explore closely
whether or not the designation will affect private property owners or
in any way hinder fire suppression. In this case, there are no private
inholdings within or adjacent to the wilderness designated by this
legislation. Similarly, the Forest Service has indicated that there are
no fuels treatment projects planned for this high elevation area.
Furthermore, the bill contains language reiterating that the Wilderness
Act provides land managers with the discretion to use any means
necessary to fight and prevent wildfires.
I believe passage of this legislation will help maintain the rural,
outdoors lifestyle that local citizens currently enjoy. The legislation
protects scenic wonders in the Eastern Sierra and the world class
outdoor recreational opportunities that draw visitors from all over the
world to this beautiful region every year. This legislation will also
help ensure that visitors will continue to come to the Eastern Sierra
and contribute to the region's tourism-based economy.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to
ensure that this legislation is enacted as soon as possible.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, U.S.
Representative From California, on S. 2567
Mr. Chairman, today I take pleasure in voicing my support for the
Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic Enhancement Act.
As you are aware, I am fortunate enough to claim the majority of
California's Eastern Sierra Mountains as part of my district. The
Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic Enhancement Act will protect
some of the most pristine land in California for the enjoyment of my
constituents in the 25th District, and the visitors we welcome to the
Eastern Sierra's each year.
This legislation calls for three wilderness additions: the Hoover
Wilderness Addition, the Emigrant Wilderness Addition, and the Amargosa
Wild and Scenic River Addition. The Hoover Wilderness Addition rests
between Yosemite National Park, the existing Hoover Wilderness, and the
Emigrant Wilderness, and designates 39,680 acres of 11,000 foot
mountain peaks, glacial valleys, alpine lakes, and conifer forests as
protected wilderness area. The Emigrant Wilderness addition lies
adjacent to the existing Emigrant Wilderness, and claims two miles of
the Pacific Crest Trail. The Amargosa Wild an Scenic River Addition
designates a twenty-four mile stretch of river as protected, and
divides the section into three parts: wild, scenic, and recreational.
Given the popularity of these areas, it is necessary to find a
compromise between protection of the land and local wildlife, and
recreational sport. This legislation provides such a compromise,
affording land for recreation and preservation. Preserving wilderness
areas for future generations is imperative, and this bill as an
opportunity to do so.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is the result of a great deal of
compromise, cooperation, and support. Assistance from the Mono County
Board of Supervisors which claims the Hoover and Emigrant Wilderness
Addition, and the Inyo County Board of Supervisors which claims the
Amargosa River Addition has been vital to the introduction of this
legislation. This bill required compromise and cooperation between the
local environmental community and the Bureau of Land Management, and I
am pleased with the agreement that has been reached by both parties.
Energetic support from Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, as
well as my constituents in the 25th District make it a distinct
pleasure to introduce this legislation in the House, and I encourage
strong support of the Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic
Enhancement Act.
Senator Craig. Senator Boxer, thank you very much for
bringing this to the committee, it obviously will be a
phenomenal addition to that wilderness. But without question,
not only did you have a good photographer at hand, but the
subject is phenomenal. Thank you.
Well, we appreciate the Senators' input. Now, let us turn
to the second panel: Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior; along
with Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest Systems,
Department of Agriculture. Gentlemen.
Chad, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHAD CALVERT, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Calvert. All right. Thank you, Senator. I'm the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management,
Department of the Interior, and I'm here to testify on two of
the bills before us today, to give the perspective of the
Interior Department and for the Bureau of Land Management. The
first bill is S. 2466, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and
the second is S. 2788, the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act.
And for simplicity's sake, I'll just refer to these as the
Arizona bill and the Utah bill.
Generally, let me begin by saying that both of these bills
represent really remarkable achievements in negotiation and
compromise. They bring together many interests and will make
positive changes for all of the interested parties.
The Arizona bill will facilitate the opening of a new
copper mine to employ thousands of Arizonans. The addition of
the minerals to our economy will benefit both the State and the
Nation. This bill will also give public lands to provide
additional wildlife habitat and recreation.
For the BLM, it will add more than 3,000 acres along the
San Pedro River near Mammoth to be managed for purposes similar
to those in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area.
It will also add lands to BLM's Las Cienegas National
Conservation Area in southern Arizona. It's 950 acres, 56 acres
identified in the Sonoita Valley Acquisition Planning Area,
which was created by the bill sponsored by Congressman Colby,
which passed both the Senate and the House unanimously in the
106th Congress. The Arizona bill also will replace the existing
recreation area with more than 2,000 acres of land for a new
State park dedicated to rock climbing, and this was an
important part of the impressive compromise achieved by the
bill.
The Utah bill is also an impressive proposal that brings
together several counties, the State and the State School
Trust, and a number of environmental groups with a common
purpose of improving land tenure in eastern Utah. The BLM
manages nearly 23 million acres of land in Utah. This bill
would exchange roughly 34,000 acres of that for approximately
45,000 acres of land managed by the School Trust.
Generally, the exchange will block up ownership patterns
and provide more uniform management. The lands we acquired for
the United States have primarily recreation, wildlife, riparian
and cultural values. Lands to be conveyed are primarily mineral
lands with some economic and agricultural development
opportunities. The Department supports the purposes of both of
these bills. We do have some concerns with a couple of
provisions that mostly relate to management and/or public
expectations, and these concerns are discussed in detail in my
written statement. I would just take a moment to highlight a
couple of them.
With regards to the Arizona bill, our primary concern
relates to the exchange valuation. The Department appreciates
the desire of the sponsors to ensure that the entire package of
lands gets exchanged. It's important to note that the
requirement in section 5(b)(2) for the Department of the
Interior to pay an equalization in cash if the value of non-
Federal land exceeds that of the Federal may actually inject
uncertainty into the exchange. As stated in the written
testimony I provided, in this instance, a more certain remedy,
if this equalization problem arises, would be a simple
authority to reduce the lands to be exchanged to bring them
into an equal value situation.
The other principal concern relates to the Dripping Springs
parcel that would be conveyed to the State of Arizona
ultimately. Because there is an expectation from the bill that
a rock climbing area would be developed, we would prefer that
all the lands go straight to the State, so the acquired parcel
is not directed through the Bureau of Land Management for
simplicity's sake.
Throughout the Utah bill, the Department has worked very
closely with the House Resources Committee and the proponents
of the bill for almost a year. The bill introduced here by
Senator Bennett reflects a lot of the progress that has been
made. We've worked through a number of very difficult issues
and I appreciate the proponents' and the committee staffs'
patience and willingness to work with us. Nearly all of the
administration's concerns have been addressed. We feel
comfortable that the bill can be implemented according to the
expectations of the sponsors.
The most thorny issue, as Senator Bennett mentioned, has
been valuation function, and the bill proposes some alternative
methods of valuation that are addressed in more detail in my
written statement. The Department's position on appraisals and
valuation is laid out in the Secretary's policy concerning land
valuation exchanges dated December 30, 2004, which is attached
to my testimony for your review.
The positions in my statement have been both reviewed and
approved by the appraisal services directorate at the
Department of the Interior, the Inspector General and the
Office of Management and Budget. I am happy to answer any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chad Calvert, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, on S. 2788
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2788, the Utah
Recreational Land Exchange Act. The bill would legislate a large-scale
land exchange between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the State
of Utah. We strongly support the completion of major land exchanges
with the State of Utah. We look forward to working with the sponsors
and the Committee on S. 2788 and could support the bill with some
additional modifications. As a matter of policy, we support working
with states to resolve land tenure and land transfer issues that
advance worthwhile public policy objectives. A great deal of progress
has been made on this legislation over the last eight months and the
bill as introduced in the Senate reflects much of that work.
BACKGROUND
The Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration
(SITLA) manages approximately 3.5 million acres of land and 4.5 million
acres of mineral estate within the State of Utah primarily for the
benefit of the schools of the State of Utah. Many of these parcels are
scattered and interspersed with public lands managed by the BLM.
Managing 22.87 million acres of land within the State of Utah, the
BLM's mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of
the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future
generations. As the nation's largest Federal land manager, the BLM
administers the public lands for a wide range of multiple uses,
including energy production, recreation, livestock grazing,
conservation use, forestry and open space. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) provides the BLM with a clear multiple-use
mandate which the BLM implements through its land use planning process.
Section 206 of FLPMA provides the BLM with the authority to
undertake land exchanges. Exchanges allow the BLM to acquire
environmentally-sensitive lands while transferring public lands into
private ownership for local needs and the consolidation of scattered
tracts. Over the past five years, throughout the bureau, nearly 550,000
acres of public lands were disposed of through exchange, while 370,000
acres were acquired by the BLM through this process. During this same
time period in Utah, the BLM has disposed of 110,178 acres while
acquiring 112,842 acres through exchange. The vast majority of this was
completed under the direction of Congress through the Utah West Desert
Land Exchange Act (Public Law 106-301).
S. 2788
S. 2788 directs the exchange of approximately 40,000 acres of lands
managed by SITLA for approximately 40,000 acres of BLM-managed Federal
lands. Many of the lands that the State is proposing to transfer to the
BLM are lands that the BLM has a high degree of interest in acquiring
because they would consolidate Federal ownership within wilderness
study areas, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, or other
sensitive lands. Among these are:
<bullet> 640 acres on the eastern boundary of Arches National Park
which will provide important viewshed protections;
<bullet> 1,280 acres and 420 acres along the Colorado River west and
east of Moab which includes Corona Arch and other popular
recreation sites within the BLM's Colorado Riverway Management
Area;
<bullet> 4,500 Acres within the Castle Valley watershed which also
has important wildlife habitat and scenic values;
<bullet> 2,560 acres of land currently leased by the BLM and Grand
County from the State for recreation-related activities
associated with the Sand Flats Recreation Area and the famous
Slickrock Mountain Bike Trail; and,
<bullet> 800 acres within the Nine Mile Canyon containing significant
cultural and recreational resources.
We support the provisions of the bill that establish a phasing
process for the transfer of lands from SITLA to the BLM. This will
allow BLM to prioritize the use of Federal resources in the appraisal
and review process on the lands with the highest resource value for
acquisition.
The bill also identifies a number of parcels for transfer to SITLA
from the BLM. Some of these would improve manageability and encourage
appropriate local development, including:
<bullet> 2,800 acres of scattered parcels near the town of Green
River which are suitable for private agricultural development;
and
<bullet> 80 acres adjacent to Canyonlands Field municipal airport
operated by Grand County, Utah which are suitable for private
development.
In addition, some of the lands identified for transfer to SITLA
from the BLM have high energy potential.
VALUATION ISSUES
In December of 2004, former Secretary of the Interior Norton issued
policy guidance to all of the bureaus on legislative exchanges and land
valuation issues. A copy of that guidance (Secretary of the Interior
Order No. 3258) is included for the record. This policy was developed
to ensure that land transactions are conducted with integrity and earn
public confidence.
The policy states that all real property appraisals performed by
the Department shall conform to nationally recognized appraisal
standards (i.e., the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions (UASFLA) and the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice (USPAP)). Accordingly, the policy specifically
prohibits the use by the Department of alternative methods of valuation
in appraisals. However, the policy recognizes there may be times when
Congress will direct, or the Department will propose, the use of
alternative methods of valuation other than, or in addition to a
standard appraisal. Under the policy guidance, if Congress directs the
Department to use an alternative method of valuation in a specific
transaction, the Department will expressly describe the alternative
method of valuation applied; explain how the alternative method of
valuation differs from appraisal methods applied under the Uniform
Appraisal Standards or the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice; and, if so directed by Congress, provide this material to the
appropriate committees prior to or after completion of the transaction,
as required by the direction.
The Department's Inspector General has commented on the
Department's appraisal reform efforts. In testimony given before the
Senate Committee on Finance, he commended the Department for the
significant changes it has made to the land appraisal program and
process.
As stated, there are circumstances in which the Congress or the
Administration may decide that alternative methods of valuation are
appropriate for achieving worthwhile public policy objectives. It is
our duty to be clear and transparent about the details of proposed
exchanges and to be clear that an alternative method of valuation is
being used.
S. 2788 is not an Administration legislative proposal. It is a
legislative proposal from Congress. Its stated purpose is to facilitate
the exchange of certain Federal lands for non-Federal lands to further
the public interest by exchanging Federal land that has limited
recreational and conservation resources and acquiring State trust land
with important recreational, scenic, and conservation resources for
permanent public management and use. To meet these legitimate public
policy objectives, Congress may determine that alternative methods of
valuation are consistent with the intent of the legislation.
S. 2788 directs that all appraisals shall be in accordance with the
requirements of FLPMA and with the BLM's regulations governing
appraisals. The bill further directs the use of two alternative methods
of valuation for two different purposes. I will describe the
Department's view of each of these and the relative benefits or risks
of using these methods.
Sec. 5(b)(4) requires that, for Federal lands that are not under
mineral lease at the time of appraisal, such lands shall be valued
without regard to the presence of any minerals that are subject to
leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. This provision would not
affect the appraisals for lands that contain no mineral values.
Additionally, it would not affect the appraisals for those lands that
are already under Federal mineral lease. Rather, this provision would
modify a standard appraisal by directing a reduction in the value of
any eligible parcel by the value of any present minerals which are
subject to leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, but not under
lease. For such lands, the transaction value would be reduced by the
value of those. minerals. In exchange for this reduction in value, the
State or its successors in interest to the property (by virtue of
covenant language in Section 5(b)(4)(B)) would have to agree to pay the
United States 50% of whatever bonus or rentals are paid to the State
for any mineral development in the future; and an amount equal to the
Federal royalties that would have otherwise been collected by any
future mineral development conducted pursuant to the Mineral Leasing
Act, minus amounts that would have otherwise been due to the State
under Section 35 of that Act.
This is a complicated methodology that departs from a standard
appraisal and valuation practice. We note that currently under standard
appraisals oil shale, the mineral that, in addition to oil and gas, is
likely to be found in the unleased lands that would be convey to the
State, does not factor into the value because there are no comparable
oil shale transactions, or there is no reasonably foreseeable oil shale
development on the property. The result of using a standard appraisal
process might therefore be that properties with significant oil shale
resources will probably have no additional value attributed to them by
virtue of the presence of this resource. This could lead to the
criticism that the United States is ``giving away'' potentially
millions of dollars in oil shale. The material purpose of the
provisions contained in section 5(b)(4) is to address that risk by
ensuring that the United States receives the value for any future oil
shale or other leasable mineral development it would have received if
the Federal government had retained the lands and leased them.
We would like to work with the Committee to further refine this
section. In particular, we would like the bill to clarify that under
Section 5(b)(4), the royalty rate for which the State would compensate
the Federal government in the event that currently unleased minerals
are eventually developed is the standard Federal onshore rate
established at the time the resource is developed. Also, it may be more
appropriate to narrow the scope of this provision expressly to oil
shale and allow for an appraisal that would capture the value of any
other leasable minerals according to general appraisal standards. In
addition, as currently drafted, the provision conditions the use of the
alternative method of valuation on an agreement the State would make
after conveyance of the lands. The lands, however, cannot be conveyed
until they are valued.
The second alternative method of valuation is found in Sec.
5(b)(6)(B). This provision would apply only to parcels under Federal
mineral lease at the time of the appraisal. Clause (ii) in that
subparagraph would direct the BLM to reduce the value of an applicable
appraisal by an amount equal to what would be the State's share under
Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act. A standard appraisal would
identify the value of the parcel based on a net present value of the
future royalty stream. That valued revenue stream would comprise the
entire Federal collection, without an offset or reduction for the
portion of the revenue stream that the Federal government remits to a
state. It is the Department's understanding that this provision is
included to recognize that the Mineral Leasing Act currently provides
that 50% of all the money received by the United States in accordance
with Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act shall be paid to the State
within the boundaries of which the leased lands or deposits are or were
located.
This provision would reduce the net present valuation by an amount
equal to what would be the State's share under the Mineral Leasing Act.
The overall result of the proposed valuation methods will be a
greater number of Federal acres exchanged for a lesser number of state
acres. This may be the desired outcome given Congress' stated public
policy objectives.
OTHER CONCERNS
The Department opposes section 5(d) of the bill requiring a
``resource report'' on the lands to be transferred out of Federal
ownership. Under S. 2788 the Secretary has no discretion regarding the
lands to be transferred out of Federal ownership; therefore the intent
and usefulness of this section is unclear. Resource reports on the
parcels will be time-consuming and costly, will delay the purposes of
the bill, and will not ultimately affect the directed exchange. We urge
the Committee to delete this provision.
Additionally, the Department has serious concerns with section
6(a)(2)(B) which places permanent withdrawals from the mineral leasing
and mineral materials laws' on certain state parcels once they are
transferred to the Federal government. We would support the short term
withdrawals envisioned in 6(a)(2)(A) because they are consistent with
the present public planning process. Generally the Department prefers
to identify lands for permanent withdrawal from mineral entry or
leasing through the public land use planning process because it gives
all interested parties an opportunity to be heard. A short-term
withdrawal of these lands from mineral leasing would preserve the
option of more permanent withdrawal for any final record of decision.
This is standard BLM practice.
We would like the opportunity to continue to fine tune some
technical provisions, including section 4(a), to insure that the
implementation of the exchange is correctly and appropriately
completed.
Finally, we understand that the current maps created by the BLM,
dated March 16, 2006, are works in progress. We look forward to the
opportunity to finalize these in the coming weeks in coordination with
the sponsors and the Committee.
CONCLUSION
The Department of the Interior supports the intent of this
legislation. Large-scale land exchanges can resolve management issues,
improve public access, and facilitate greater resource protection, and
we support such exchanges. To that end, we are ready to work with the
Committee and the sponsor to resolve remaining issues in the bill. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, December 30, 2004.
order no. 3258
Subject: Policy Guidance Concerning Land Valuation and Legislative
Exchanges
Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order provides policy for land valuation
issues, real property appraisals, and legislative land exchanges.
Sec. 2 Background. During the past year, the Department has taken
significant steps to ensure that land transactions are conducted with
integrity and earn public confidence. These steps include implementing
reforms to improve the management of real property appraisals,
establishing the Appraisal Services Directorate, and issuing the Land
Transaction Principles. This Order provides the following: (a) a policy
on alternative methods of valuation (AMV) that addresses the need to
comport with nationally applicable appraisal standards; (b) a policy on
appraisals prepared for third (i. e., non-Federal) parties; and (c) a
policy on legislative exchanges that reinforces existing Departmental
guidance and further provides for a Departmental determination on how
to review such proposals internally to ensure appropriate coordination
and decision making. The legislative exchange policy also underscores
the importance of adhering to applicable appraisal standards in
developing applicable legislative provisions.
Sec. 3 Authority. The policy in this Order is being issued in
accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice.
Sec. 4 Policy.
a. Alternative Methods of Valuation.
(1) All real property appraisals performed by the Department shall
conform to nationally recognized appraisal standards (i. e., the
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, as applicable).
Accordingly, the use of public interest value, contingent valuation,
habitat equivalency analysis, and any other AMV in appraisals is
expressly prohibited.
(2) If Congress directs the Department to utilize AMV other than or
in addition to an appraisal in a specific transaction, the Department
shall (a) expressly describe the AMV applied; (b) using the assistance
of the Appraisal Services Directorate (ASD), explain how the AMV differ
from appraisal methods applied under UASFLA or USPAP; and (c) upon
Congressional direction, provide this material to the appropriate
committees prior to or after completion of the transaction, in
accordance with such direction.
(3) Requirement for Congressional Authorization or Notification.
(a) If the Department proposes to utilize AMV other than or in
addition to an appraisal in a specific transaction that requires
Congressional authorization, the Department shall expressly describe to
the appropriate committees of Congress the AMV applied and, using the
assistance of the ASD, explain how they differ from appraisal methods
applied under UASFLA or USPAP.
(b) If the Department proposes to utilize AMV other than or in
addition to an appraisal in a specific transaction that does not
require Congressional authorization, the Department shall notify the
appropriate committees of Congress and the Office of the Inspector
General prior to the completion of the transaction and, upon
Congressional direction, explain, using the assistance of the ASD, to
the appropriate committees how the AMV differ from appraisal methods
applied under UASFLA or USPAP.
(4) The Associate Director, ASD, has overall authority and
responsibility to ensure the effective implementation of this policy,
in coordination with the Office of the Special Trustee for American
Indians (OST), as applicable, and the Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs (OCL).
b. Appraisals Prepared for Third (i.e., non-Federal) Parties.
(1) Appraisals prepared for third (i. e., non-Federal) parties may
assist in achieving mutually beneficial outcomes for the Department and
the proponent. The Department of the Interior, however, is not
obligated to review land transaction proposals supported by such
appraisals that do not comport with its land management missions,
priorities, and plans.
(2) Upon bureau request, the Department, acting through the ASD or
the OST, as applicable, shall review a third party appraisal if: (a)
the third party consults with ASD or OST prior to the initiation of the
appraisal on the scope of work and the selection of the appraiser, and
agree that ASD or OST, as applicable, is both the client for and an
intended user of the appraisal; (b) a senior bureau or Departmental
manager (i. e., Senior Executive Service level in the field or
headquarters, as applicable) has transmitted the appraisal with a
determination that the land transaction proposal supported by the
appraisal comports with applicable missions, priorities, and plans; and
(c) ASD or OST, as applicable, has determined that the appraisal was
prepared by a certified appraiser and meets applicable appraisal
standards.
(3) ASD or OST review of an appraisal does not create an
expectation that such appraisal will be approved.
(4) In cases where an appraisal is reviewed by ASD or OST, a second
appraisal may be required. If so, ASD or OST shall conduct or oversee
that appraisal, which shall be performed in accordance with procedures
determined by ASD or OST, as applicable.
(5) The Associate Director, ASD, has overall authority and
responsibility to ensure the implementation of this policy in
coordination with OST, as applicable, and the OCL.
c. Legislative Exchanges.
(1) All officials and employees of the Department shall adhere to
461 DM I, which addresses requests for information, drafting, or other
assistance regarding legislation from sources outside the Department,
and specifically requires coordination with the Legislative Counsel in
OCL.
(2) Similar coordination with the OCL shall occur on legislative
exchange proposals initiated by any entity, official, or employee of
the Department.
(3) The OCL shall determine the appropriate means for the review of
each legislative exchange proposal, including the involvement of
appropriate policy officials of other offices (e.g., the ASD or the OST
as appropriate, and the Solicitor).
(4) Appropriate documentation shall support the key provisions of
all legislative exchange proposals.
(5) All appraisals used in legislative exchanges shall conform to
nationally recognized appraisal standards (i. e., the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, as applicable). When the Department
proposes the application of alternative methods of valuation other than
or in addition to an appraisal for a legislative exchange, it shall
expressly describe the alternative methods of valuation and explain how
they differ from methods utilized in an appraisal consistent with
nationally recognized appraisal standards (i. e., the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, as applicable).
(6) The Director, OCL, has overall authority and responsibility to
ensure the effective implementation of this policy, in coordination
with the Associate Director, ASD, as applicable.
Sec. 5 Expiration Date. This Order is effective immediately. It
will remain in effect until its provisions are converted to the
Departmental Manual or until it is amended, superseded, or revoked,
whichever occurs first. In the absence of any of the foregoing actions,
the provisions of this Order will terminate and be considered obsolete
on July 30, 2006.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary of the Interior.
Senator Craig. Chad, thank you very much.
Joel, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today in order to provide the Department's
views.
S. 2466, The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and
Conservation Act. I will limit my remarks to the provisions of
the bill directly related to the National Forest System lands
and will defer to the Department of the Interior on provisions
relating to the lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
S. 2466 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to
Resolution Copper Mining, the 3,025-acre Oak Flat parcel, all
right, title, and interest of the United States, including a
562-acre conservation easement for the Apache Leap escarpment.
This conservation easement would provide permanent protection
for the parcel from surface disturbance and ensure future
public access and use. The bill directs simultaneous conveyance
from Resolution Copper to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
five parcels of land.
S. 2466 also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey
to the town of Superior, upon receipt of a request, the 30-acre
town cemetery, approximately 181 acres adjacent to the Superior
airport, and Federal reversionary interest in the 265-acre
airport site already owned by the town.
The Department believes the acquisition of the non-Federal
parcels to be managed by the Forest Service is in the public
interest and would provide protection for riparian habitat and
water rights, archeological sites, lands along a permanently
flowing stream, a year-round pond and an endangered cactus
species. In this context, the Department supports the exchange
as well as the valuation provisions. We would like to work with
the Subcommittee and the bill sponsors on several
recommendations and amendments such as:
In section 4(a), which requires the Secretary to convey to
Resolution Copper all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the Federal land. However, it only requires
Resolution Copper to convey to the Secretary of the Interior
title to the non-Federal lands. To avoid any ambiguity in the
nature of the titles to be conveyed by the United States and
Resolution Copper, the titles should be described the same. So,
we recommend, for instance, section 4(a) be amended to require
Resolution Copper to also convey all right, title and interest
to the non-Federal land.
Section 8(a) also directs the Secretary to design and
construct a campground on the Globe Ranger District as a
replacement for the Oak Flat campground. Preliminary
indications are that it may be difficult to find a suitable
replacement within the Globe Ranger District. In order to
ensure an appropriate campground replacement site can be
located, we recommend the Secretary be provided the latitude to
select a site within the Tonto National Forest, recognizing the
desirability of doing it near the town of Superior as much as
possible. We are also concerned that the $500,000 Resolution
Copper is directed to pay for the replacement campground is
unlikely to be sufficient, and suggest the legislation's
directed payment protect the taxpayer's interest by reflecting
the total costs of the campground replacement.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee and the bill
sponsors to work on these and other recommendations.
Regarding S. 2567, The Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and
Economic Enhancement Act, this act provides for the designation
of 39,680 acres of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest as an
addition to the Hoover Wilderness Area and 640 acres of the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest as an addition to the Emigrant
Wilderness Area.
The Act also provides for the continued operation and
maintenance of the Piute Cabin, located in the western portion
of the Hoover Wilderness Addition, as well as providing the
appropriate direction for fire, insect and disease management
activities, livestock grazing and fish and wildlife management.
The West Hoover area contains the headwaters of the West
Walker River with outstanding examples of East-side Sierra Pine
Forest, leading up to the alpine crest of the Sierras. In
addition, portions of the Pacific Crest Trail traverse through
the area. The area is replete with high mountain meadows,
craggy mountain crests, and fishable streams, as we saw in the
pictures from Senator Boxer.
The Department supports the designation of the wilderness
additions since it is consistent with the Humboldt-Toiyabe
Forest Plan direction, which recommended the area for
wilderness designation.
Section 5 of S. 2567 provides for the designation of
approximately 24 miles of the Amargosa River under the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act. Four separate segments of the Amargosa would
be designated under S. 2567. The Amargosa is the only free-
flowing river in the Death Valley area and as such provides a
rare and lush riparian space. These 24 miles flow through lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management, and the BLM supports
the designation, which is consistent with BLM planning and has
strong local backing. The wild and scenic river designations in
this bill are the result of a community-based effort, and an
excellent example of cooperative conservation. This concludes
my statement and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Department of Agriculture, on S. 2466 and S. 2567
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today in order to provide the
Department's view on S. 2466 and S. 2657.
S. 2466--THE SOUTHEAST ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE AND CONSERVATION ACT OF
2006
I will limit my remarks to the provisions of the bill directly
related to the National Forest System lands and will defer to the
Department of the Interior on provisions relating to the lands managed
by the Bureau of Land Management.
S. 2466 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to
Resolution Copper Mining, LLC the 3,025 acre ``Oak Flat'' Parcel all
right, title, and interest of the United States, including a 562 acre
conservation easement for the Apache Leap escarpment. This conservation
easement would provide permanent protection for the parcel from surface
disturbance and ensure future public access and use. The bill directs
simultaneous conveyance from Resolution Copper to the United States,
Secretary of Agriculture the following five parcels of land: The 147-
acre Turkey Creek parcel in Gila County; the 148-acre Tangle Creek
parcel in Yavapai County; the 149.3-acre Cave Creek parcel in Maricopa
County; and the-266 acre JI Ranch parcel in Pinal County (all located
within the Tonto National Forest); and the 640-acre East Clear Creek
parcel in Coconino County located within the Coconino National Forest.
S. 2466 also directs the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the
town of Superior, upon receipt of a request, the 30-acre town cemetery,
approximately 181 acres adjacent to the Superior airport, and Federal
reversionary interest in the 265-acre airport site already owned by the
town.
It is our understanding that upon completion of the land exchange,
Resolution Copper would explore the possibility of developing a very
deep copper mine within the Oak Flat parcel.
The Department believes the acquisition of the non-federal parcels
to be managed by the Forest Service is in the public interest and would
provide protection for riparian habitat and water rights, archeological
sites, lands along a permanently flowing stream, a year round pond and
an endangered cactus species. In this context, the Department supports
the exchange as well as the valuation provisions. We would like to work
with the Subcommittee and the bill sponsors on several recommendations
and amendments as follows:
Section 4(a) requires the Secretary to convey to Resolution Copper
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
Federal land. However it only requires Resolution Copper to convey to
the Secretary or Secretary of Interior title to the non-Federal Lands.
To avoid any ambiguity in the nature of the titles to be conveyed by
the United States and Resolution Copper the titles should be described
the same. We recommend Section 4(a) be amended to require Resolution
Copper to also convey all right, title and interest to the non-Federal
land.
Section 4(c)(1) states that ``Not later than 60 days before
carrying out the land exchange . . . , on receipt of a request from the
town, the Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to the town . . . .''
Based on our experiences in land exchanges, standard land exchange
procedures will not accommodate this prescribed time frame. Generally,
requests for appraisal services and instructions to the appraiser are
issued early in the exchange or sale process and many months in advance
of closing. Normally, any request from the town would have to come
before the request for appraisal services is issued by the Forest to
determine the value of the parcels. To allow these parcels to be
considered in the exchange, and to facilitate a timely conveyance to
the town, we recommend that any appraisal of the lands be conducted
concurrently with the appraisal of the lands identified in the
exchange.
Section 8(a) also directs the Secretary to design and construct a
campground on the Globe Ranger District as a replacement for the Oak
Flat campground. Preliminary indications are that it may be difficult
to find a suitable replacement within the Globe Ranger District. In
order to insure an appropriate campground replacement site can be
located, we recommend the Secretary be provided the latitude to select
a site within the Tonto National Forest. We are also concerned that the
$500,000 Resolution Copper is directed to pay for the replacement
campground is unlikely to be sufficient, and suggest the legislation's
directed payment protect the taxpayer's interest by reflecting the
total costs of the campground replacement.
Section 8(c)(3) identifies areas to be closed to public use on
enactment of the Act. Both recreational and exploratory mining uses of
the area have coexisted for many years. When mining activities make
public safety an issue, temporary closures are made. We would recommend
the area closure be negotiated based on the needs expressed in mining
plans of operations during the period between bill enactment and
consummation of the exchange.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee and the bill sponsors
to insure the maps described in the bill are referenced and dated
properly as well as some additional technically minor amendments as
described in the attachment to this statement.
s. 2567--the eastern sierra rural heritage and economic enhancement act
S. 2567 provides for the designation of 39,680 acres of the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest as an addition to the Hoover
Wilderness Area and 640 acres of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
as an addition to the Emigrant Wilderness Area.
S. 2567 also provides for the continued operation and maintenance
of the Piute Cabin located in the western portion of the Hoover
Wilderness Addition as well as providing the appropriate direction for
fire, insect and disease management activities, livestock grazing and
fish and wildlife management.
The West Hoover area contains the headwaters of the West Walker
River with outstanding examples of East-side Sierra Pine Forest leading
up to the alpine crest of the Sierra's. In addition, portions of the
Pacific Crest Trail, a nationally significant National Scenic Trail
traverse through the area before entering Yosemite National Park. The
area is replete with high mountain meadows, craggy mountain crests, and
fishable streams.
The Department supports the designation of the wilderness additions
since it is consistent with the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Plan direction
which recommended the areas for wilderness designation.
Section 5 of S. 2567 provides for the designation of approximately
24 miles of the Amargosa River under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Four separate segments of the Amargosa would be designated under S.
2567 including one wild segments, two scenic segments and one
recreational segment. The Amargosa, the ``Crown Jewel of the Mojave
Desert,'' is the only free flowing river in the Death valley area and
as such provides a rare and lush riparian space. These 24 miles flow
through lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The BLM
supports the designation which is consistent with BLM planning and has
strong local backing. The wild and scenic river designations in this
bill are the result of a community based effort, and excellent example
of cooperative conservation.
This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Attachment to the Department of Agriculture's Statement
Pertaining to S. 2466
In Section 4(c)(1)(B)--Conveyance of Land to Town, in addition to
the reversionary clause in the existing deed, there are some reserved
mineral interests on the airport land. To eliminate potential future
issues, we recommend amending the provision by inserting after the
reversionary interest ``and any reserved mineral interest . . .''
In Section 4(e)(2)(c) states that ``any other cost agreed to by
Resolution Copper and the Secretary of Agriculture'' shall be the
responsibility of Resolution Copper. To clarify that Resolution Copper
is willing to pay costs of processing the exchange, we recommend
including reasonable reimbursement to both the Secretary of Agriculture
and Secretary of the Interior for the agency costs of processing this
exchange.
In Section 5(a)(4) we recommend amending the provision by adding
the following language at the end of the clause: ``. . .and any other
interests associated with the 1872 Mining Act.''
Section 8(a) requires the Secretary to operate the Oak Flat
Campground for two years or less if a replacement campground is
constructed. However, Section 8(c) directs the Secretary to manage the
Oak Flats area for public access until the land is transferred. We
recommend Section 8(a) be amended to ``until the land is transferred.''
Senator Craig. Gentlemen, thank you both. Let me ask a
couple of questions here. Chad, as it relates to S. 2466, I'm a
little confused with the testimony about wanting to be
responsible for a parcel that would go to the State of Arizona
for State parks for up to 5 years. I understand that a good
portion of the land, 2,000 acres out of 2,160 acres that will
become State park is currently BLM; yet I hear the BLM is
concerned about maintaining responsibility for lands it already
has responsibility to manage.
While I can understand your concern about having to build
or reconstruct a road in there, it seems a small price to pay
when the agency is getting 2 acres for every 1 acre you're
giving up. When did the Department of the Interior, or for that
matter the BLM, begin assessing land exchange based on what is
good for the BLM instead of what is good for the public?
Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's a good
question. Actually, the 2,000 acres the BLM currently manages
is obviously not the problem for the BLM. The question that we
have is, there is an expectation in the bill that a climbing
park will be developed and BLM does not have the capacity to
develop or manage or oversee a climbing park in that area right
now. Really, the concern is about the 160 acres coming in and
then passing along and it was simply our preference that that
happened immediately, and if the conveyance of the 2,000 acres
is to be envisioned as it is in the bill, that it just all
happen at once and not have the BLM holding onto some land that
is to be developed as a climbing park.
Senator Craig. OK. Well, I think you can see my concern,
because I recognize that agencies hold land in trust for the
citizens and not necessarily for the benefit of the agencies
and I was having a little more difficult time understanding
that, if you will.
On S. 2788, the Utah Recreational Land Exchange, I
understand that there have been substantial negotiations on the
House side of this legislation. Has the Department been
involved in those negotiations and have changes occurred to
address the Department's concern?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, sir, as I've said, we've been working
with the committee and with the sponsors of the bill on the
House side to address a number of issues we raised in testimony
last year. We have made considerable progress and a number of
provisions of the bill have been modified substantially to
address the concerns that we had that were primarily raised by
the our Solicitor's Office and our Office of Appraisal.
Senator Craig. OK. Under the provisions dealing with
valuation of un-leased minerals, the Department of the
Interior, and therefore the U.S. Government, would receive
exactly what they would receive if those lands were leased by
the BLM under the Mineral Leasing Act or under acts where the
Federal Government receives royalties. Is this accurate and why
would there be any concern over such a provision other than it
is different than trying to appraise unknown minerals?
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, because this is one of the issues
we grappled with for months. And I think Senator Bennett put it
best in saying this was a compromise achieved to meet a need.
And the need is, how do you value. Primarily what we were
concerned with was oil shale. There are massive oil shale
resources in eastern Utah that would probably have no value in
an appraisal because they are not foreseeable in the
development and there would be no comparables by which to
compare the property to. So this compromise was put together in
an effort to hold the Federal Government harmless in the event
that oil shale is developed because it wouldn't show up in a--
likely show up in an appraisal. We worked with them and the
Secretary. Policy on appraisals is set up in such a way that we
prefer using the standards, the appraisal standards, but where
there may be an alternate method of valuation, such as here, it
is simply our duty to tell you how we read it and how it would
be implemented and how it might differ from standards and I
think we tried to do that in the written statement for you.
Senator Craig. I think you have, and I'll leave it at that.
I understand that there is a uniqueness to this, a newness, and
I think it was very creative. The unknown is out there, yet
there is a reality that some day it may be of substantial
value, and if there is one thing that you are responsible for,
that's making sure that the public trust is held whole here,
and I appreciate that.
Joel, let me turn to you on S. 2466, the Arizona Resolution
Copper Exchange. I see the Forest Service is concerned with the
time allowed to identify and construct a replacement campground
and the restriction that it be located in the Globe District.
I'm told that two potential sites have already been identified
and that, as part of the exchange, the Forest Service will be
receiving the JI Ranch Parcel just up the road from Oak Flat,
which was a water source that the Oak Flat site does not have.
Can you provide me a detailed description of why you think it
could take more than 2 years to get this done?
Mr. Holtrop. I'd be happy to do so. And, actually, my
understanding is there are three sites that the Forest is
indicating to me that they are considering as potential sites
on the Globe Ranger District. The circumstance is, each one of
those parcels, including the JI Ranch Parcel, each one of those
sites do have some issues associated with them. They might be
issues around having the access necessary to access the
campground. There are some issues around hazardous materials
from former, prior mining activities in the area with a couple
of cases. And then there are circumstances around cultural or
heritage sites that would need to be mitigated along with the
development of the campground. So it's the thought that we
would need to do the NEPA analysis to select the most
appropriate site to do the associated environmental analysis,
including looking at the heritage sites, and then the site
design, perhaps an access road design, contracting for all
that. I thought it was appropriate to at least express a
concern that the 2 years might be a short period of time for
all of those steps to be taken.
Senator Craig. Can you tell me when the last time was that
a private entity has proposed to pay a half a million dollars
to build a new campground in the National Forest System?
Mr. Holtrop. I'm not aware of any time that that's
happened.
Senator Craig. I didn't think you were. And neither am I.
And I think this is obviously a due diligence and a commitment
on the part of the private entity to do the right thing.
The Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic Enhancement
Act, I'm fascinated by the title. Per the statement of the act,
if I understand it, the Forest Service was directed in the
early 1980's to manage this area as if it were wilderness until
the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest plan was completed. Then,
in the 1986 forest plan, the area was recommended to be
designated as a wilderness. If I am correct, it has been
managed as a wilderness since then. In fact, the September 2000
Clinton administration roadless map showed this as wilderness.
Thus, I am struggling to understand what the economic
enhancement could be if this legislation is passed.
The question is this, if Congress were to earmark $2
million each year to manage the wilderness addition without
increasing the overall recreation wilderness and heritage
budget, a line item, how would that affect the agency's ability
to manage other wildernesses?
Mr. Holtrop. Well, maybe one of the best ways to think
about the effect that that might have is the entire recreation
and heritage and wilderness budget for the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest in this year is $2.3 million. Obviously, if $2
million were earmarked without any additional increase for the
management of the areas around the Hoover Wilderness addition,
that would leave $300,000 remaining for the rest of the
recreation, wilderness and heritage programs of the Humboldt-
Toiyabe that are currently requiring about $2.3 million. So, it
would have an effect on the Humboldt-Toiyabe.
We would almost certainly make a decision not to have the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest accept all of that additional
responsibility, so it would be spread to the other areas,
either throughout the inter-mountain region, or perhaps more
likely, nationally. So it would have an effect on our ability
to manage the rest of the system.
Senator Craig. OK, if it is wilderness, and it hasn't had
the title put to it, it's a wilderness study area. How much
change will occur? How much more additional expense will occur
if Congress so designates?
Mr. Holtrop. I'm not aware that there would be significant
additional expense because we are, as you indicated, instructed
in our managing the area as wilderness at this time. The formal
designation, there might be some additional expenses of signing
and posting and boundaries and some of those types of things.
There's an ongoing issue that--again, I'm not sure the formal
designation changes the management of snowmobile use adjacent
to the area, but that would be something that would continue to
be an issue for us. But the actual designation would probably
have a very limited impact on the use of the area.
The Hoover Wilderness, the existing Hoover Wilderness is an
area that is under a quota system, a recreation quota system on
the trailheads. What would likely occur if this legislation
were to pass, we would look at that quota system and add the
trailheads that have been added to that and there may be some
redistribution of the use. Those quotas on the trailheads
generally fill up to capacity on weekends during the summers
and early fall. So there might be some redistribution.
Senator Craig. Well, I'm curious, because I understand when
you hang a sign up you get greater attention, but I'm also
curious as to how much the current use levels would change
based on the reality of what we're actually proposing to do
here, or is being proposed, from what it is to what it would
be.
Mr. Holtrop. I would certainly think that use that is local
and regional in context, to those who are already aware of the
area and recognize it as an area being managed as wilderness,
would have--there would be very little difference with the
wilderness designation. I would also think that there may be
some national perspective, or people just traveling through the
area, recognizing it as a nationally designated area. There may
be some additional interest because of that.
Senator Craig. Some of that happens. Well, gentlemen, thank
you both. We'll work with you as we move toward a mark-up on
these bills, too, and, of course, with the sponsors to make
sure we get it right. We thank you both.
OK. Now, let me call our final panel up. Mayor Michael
Hing, mayor, town of Superior, AZ; Ms. Laura Kamala, director,
Utah Lands--excuse me, director of Utah programs, Grand Canyon
Trust, Castle Valley, UT; Bill Williams, vice president for
health, safety, environment and construction, Resolution Copper
Company, Phoenix, AZ; and John Anderson, associate director,
School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Salt Lake
City, UT.
Mayor, we'll start with you. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HING, MAYOR,
TOWN OF SUPERIOR, AZ
Mr. Hing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Michael Hing, mayor
of Superior, AZ. I am pleased to submit this testimony on
behalf of the town of Superior concerning S. 2466.
My roots in Superior are deep. I was born and raised there.
My grandparents opened their grocery store in the 1920's and I
operate it now, with other members of my family. As a small
businessman and active community member, I witnessed the town's
success during boom times and its decline during busts. I plan
to usher in a positive future for the town, and this land
exchange is critical to that future.
Please allow me to explain what I mean. When the Magma Mine
was operating, our town was prospering and grew to 7,500
people. Jobs were plentiful and Superior made a name for
itself. But we depended on the mine for our well-being. Then,
in 1987, Magma closed. Our community was devastated. The
effects are lingering to this day. Our population shrank by
more than half, to 3,500 residents. Major social problems
surfaced as employment plummeted and people lost hope. Crime
and drug use skyrocketed. Schools for our children lost
funding, compromising our ability to provide a solid education.
The mine left an environmental mess for others to clean up.
As mayor, I've absorbed important lessons from witnessing
that civic trauma. I know to never rely completely on mining
again. Our economy needs to be diversified.
That's why I am so pleased that Resolution Copper Company
has come to Superior. The company's discovered a significant
ore body 7,000 feet below the old Magma Mine. With such a major
discovery, Resolution could've swept into Superior with a
flourish of promises and new mining jobs and then abandoned us
when the ore was exhausted. From the day company
representatives first arrived, they looked to the town's
future. They approached me with ways to build up our economy
and to do it right. The company is just in the early stages of
eventually extracting the ore, but its representatives are
already helping the town plan for the day the mine closes.
The company works with the schools, boosting math and
science education to elementary-age children and providing
summer jobs and college scholarships to our older youth. They
have spent and are continuing to spend millions in voluntary
efforts to clean up, reclaim and improve their lands and
facilities. They have helped arrange economic development
meetings with the Arizona Department of Commerce to shape an
affordable plan that will diversify our economy in mining
services, manufacturing, tourism, recreation and other
businesses. They have hired local contractors, provided job
training to local citizens. They are working to beef up our
infrastructure, including establishing Superior as a wireless
Internet zone. If the land exchange legislation is successful,
Superior will gain valuable property and we can use it for even
more economic development. In short, from the beginning,
Resolution has worked with Superior and other communities with
a vision of sustainable development.
The company's willingness to build Superior's future is
very important to our partnership. But even more important,
company officials have been completely transparent about their
operations. The company formed a citizens' committee to help
town residents stay informed of company activities and give our
input. They routinely ask our opinions and include us in
critical decisions.
I testify before you today as a partner with Resolution.
The land exchange legislation before you is critical to our
shared vision of the future. Resolution must complete the land
exchange before it invests $2 billion in mine development.
I will not bore you today with every detail of the
exchange, which will streamline the now-fragmented ownership of
3,000 acres in the Oak Flat area. Suffice it to say that the
town, the State, the Governor, and members of our congressional
delegation, including Senator Jon Kyl and Senator John McCain
and Representative Rick Renzi, agree that Resolution Copper
should acquire the land, including campgrounds and rock-
climbing areas. In return, the non-Federal properties that
Resolution has assembled to convey to the United States for the
exchange are spectacular in its contribution to wildlife
habitat, protection of streams and other water resources,
endangered species habitat, land conservation, and
opportunities for recreation.
Allow me to explain some of the other environmental
benefits of S. 2466, which will include for Superior,
surrounding communities and the State of Arizona.
First, section 6 of S. 2466 permanently protects the Apache
Leap escarpment, an environmental landmark above Superior that
dominates our landscape. The Superstition Land Trust and
Resolution Copper, working with the town, support the language
of S. 2466, which ensures that the Apache Leap escarpment is
never disturbed by development and remains as it is today.
Additionally, Resolution will spend up to $250,000 to provide
public access, trails, or trailheads to Apache Leap, if the
Land Trust, local Indian tribes and town deem it appropriate.
Second, Resolution, the town, and the U.S. Forest Service
have been working together to identify a new campground or
campgrounds for an existing 14-site Forest Service campground
at Oak Flat. S. 2466 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to
design and construct one or more replacements in the Globe
Ranger District, and requires Resolution to pay up to $500,000
for them.
Third, Resolution will compensate for the loss of
recreational rock climbing at Oak Flats. The company funded a
large-scale search to find a bigger and better climbing area.
The resulting find, less than 20 miles away, at Tam O'Shanter
Peak, has sparked interest from climbers all over the world.
The Arizona State Parks Board and the Arizona Legislature have
recognized this incredible find and are pursuing a new State
park there to devote to climbing. A bill is moving through the
Arizona Legislature to authorize the park's creation, assuming
that S. 2466 is enacted.
The land exchange also creates a new economic opportunities
for Superior, which, as you can see from the map attached to
testimony, is largely surrounded by the Tonto National Forest.
S. 2466 provides the town with an opportunity to acquire some
of the adjacent property from the United States to meet
anticipated growth.
Also, the town's 30-acre cemetery is located on an isolated
parcel of Federal land managed by the Tonto National Forest.
While hundreds of our forefathers have been buried there for
the past century, no authorization exists for our cemetery. S.
2466 will allow the town to acquire the parcel at fair market
value from the Forest Service.
Additionally, the town owns a 265-acre parcel, which has a
small landing strip. The property has a reversionary interest,
so if it ever stops being used as an airport, it will be
returned to the U.S. Government. The town wants to acquire the
reversionary interest, and S. 2466 provides for a sale of the
interest to the town at fair market value. Moreover, S. 2466
provides that the town may acquire up to 181 additional acres
of land contiguous to the airport, also at fair market value,
and in a manner that provides the United States with manageable
boundaries on retained parcels. These airport parcels represent
a significant opportunity for the town in terms of future
growth, economic diversification and development. The future
airport use has been protected by the Arizona Department of
Transportation. The Department's 5-year capital improvement
plan includes the ability to relocate the airport if we choose.
Finally, S. 2466 provides that if any land offered by
Resolution exceeds the appraised value of the Federal Oak Flat
parcel, any excess value can be applied to the town's purchase
of the cemetery and airport parcels. Both Resolution and the
town are anxious for the town to acquire these properties.
Mr. Chairman, as our Governor has stated, the new mine is
projected to produce 1,000 jobs during construction and 400 to
600 permanent jobs, plus more than a 1,000 related and indirect
jobs. The economic impact of the new mine will allow us to grow
in a way that ensures our future for our children and
grandchildren. The possibilities the mine holds for Superior
and Arizona are among the many reasons that Governor Napolitano
is joining us in strongly supported this land exchange.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And I would
like to thank the members of our congressional delegation,
including Senator Kyl, Senator McCain, and Representative Rick
Renzi, for their efforts in bringing this legislation to
fruition and our State delegation for providing this, the
creation of a State park. The town of Superior urges your
thoughtful consideration and timely passage of S. 2466, so that
the land exchange, which is so important to our future, can be
implemented at the earliest possible date. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Mayor, thank you very much.
Mr. Williams, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF BILL WILLIAMS, VICE PRESIDENT, RESOLUTION COPPER
COMPANY, LLC, PHOENIX, AZ
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you. My name is Bill Williams, I am the vice
president for Resolution Copper. I am here in support of S.
2466 and I'd like to take a few moments to describe to you the
activities and the efforts that we've been engaged in over the
last several years to get us to this stage, and hopefully be
able to describe to you how we've tried to address the best
interests of all parties involved.
I know you have my written comments, so I'll just focus on
a few key points.
Senator Craig. If you would, please, yes. All of your full
statements will be a part of record, so brevity is appreciated.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. The purpose of this bill, of
course, is to authorize the land exchange between Resolution
Copper and the U.S. Government, the Forest Service and BLM.
There are about 5,500 acres of Resolution property to be
exchanged for about 3,025 acres of Forest Service lands, known
as Oak Flats.
And I'll point to the map here and just ask Mr. Poe to
point out the town of Superior. The yellow area is our property
and the green area that he's describing right there is actually
the Oak Flats boundary limits. So, you can see that the
property is directly adjacent to, and in some cases underneath
or around--the ore body is around our property.
Mining has been in the area, as you've heard, for almost
100 years. The Magma Copper operations ran until 1996 and over
the course of their operations produced some 25 million tons of
copper. In about 1996 those operations shut down, and after
that operation ceased to exist, further exploration was
undertaken by my company looking for a deposit or looking at a
deposit that was, again, near and underneath the old Magma
mine. The scale of this ore deposit, as we currently see it, is
quite significant. As you've heard before, it may be one of the
world class ore deposits.
However, it's risky. There's both technical risk and
financial risk associated with this, as you've heard. Our
depths are below 7,000 feet below surface. Rock temperatures in
the mine, as we've measured with the drilling, exceed 180
degrees Fahrenheit. So, it would be both technically
challenging and financially challenging. But if we're
successful, we expect that we will see some 200 to 400 full-
time employment jobs, more than 1,000 construction jobs during
the period of construction, and at least 1,500, and perhaps
more, service industry jobs that will be associated with the
mining itself.
However, we need to secure that property to be able to move
the project forward. The Forest Service property, as I've
indicated, is both adjacent to and intermingled with our own
property. Consolidation of our holdings for this operation will
promote an efficient operation for exploration and potential
development and will ensure public safety occurs during the
time that we're active on the site.
We understand that we have an obligation to offer lands
that are of great value to the public, at least as great as the
property that we receive. And I'd like to highlight, on the
next map, eight parcels which we bring to the table for
exchange purposes.
The first is 7 miles of river bottom and riparian lands
along the San Pedro River. Quite a unique environmental habitat
in of itself. Two miles of riparian aquatic habitat along the
Clear Creek and Coconino National Forest, one of Arizona's
largest and perhaps most ancient mesquite forests. Almost 1,000
acres of diverse grassland in the Appleton-Whittell Research
Ranch. This property is jointly managed by the Forest Service,
BLM and the Audubon Society. Four parcels in the Tonto National
Forest, which have very significant riparian and ecological and
cultural and historic amenities, including a population of the
endangered Arizona hedgehog cactus, and 160 acres, as you've
heard, for rock climbing and perhaps another 160 acres to come
in.
In summary, the gain for the people of United States is
river bottoms and sensitive riparian lands, habitat and
potential habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive
species, public recreational opportunities, cultural historic
resources, habitat for a large variety of flora and fauna and a
year-round water resource.
Sir, we also, though, understand that the appraisal process
is a sensitive matter. The appraisal process will be under the
control of the Forest Service and under the direction of the
Secretary of Agriculture with the final approval resting there.
All appraisals will be conducted in accordance with U.S.
standards, appraisal standards. And even though mineral
appraisal is difficult, we don't want any allegations that the
taxpayers may not be getting full, unrestricted value.
Therefore, all the land will be appraised as if no mineral
existed on property.
I'd like to just close, sir, by indicating that we think we
have engaged in an effort to engage stakeholders around the
area. We're aware that there are a few issues that remain both
with the Federal Government as well as with the Apache Nation.
I'm confident that we have the people in place and the process
is in place to resolve those issues. Thank you for your time,
and thank you for the courtesy of your staff. I am happy to
answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill Williams, Vice President, Resolution Copper
Mining, LLC, on S. 2466,
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bill
Williams, and I am Vice President of the Resolution Copper Company, a
limited liability corporation headquartered in Superior, Arizona. I am
here in support of S. 2466, and to briefly describe the activities and
efforts we have engaged in over the past several years to insure that
the land exchange and other provisions of S. 2466 are in the best
interest of all the parties involved, and the general public.
The primary purpose of S. 2466 is to authorize, direct and expedite
a land exchange between Resolution Copper and the U.S. Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management. The goal of the land exchange, from our
perspective, is for us to acquire approximately 3,025 acres of National
Forest land known as Oak Flat. As you can see on the map attached at
the end of my testimony, Oak Flat either abuts, or is heavily
intermingled with, private land which Resolution Copper already owns.
That private land was the site of the Magma underground copper mine,
which operated from 1912 to 1996 and produced 25 million tons of copper
ore. After the Magma Mine was shut down in 1996, further exploratory
drilling revealed the existence of a potentially very significant, and
large, copper deposit located not just under our old mine, but also
under the intermingled National Forest lands we are seeking to acquire
in the exchange. As our Governor, Janet Napolitano, has indicated in
endorsing our land exchange, if the copper ore body we have discovered
can be developed into a mine, it will generate nearly 1,000
construction jobs; 400 permanent, high quality technical jobs; and
nearly 1,500 service related provisions.
Despite the fact that we currently hold unpatented Federal mining
claims on most of the National Forest land we are seeking to acquire,
the fragmented and interspersed nature of our lands and the National
Forest lands makes it far preferable for us to own and control all the
land where we could potentially be mining in the future. Developing an
underground mine--this one would be a mile and a half beneath the
surface--is an extremely expensive and financially risky proposition--
involving $200-400 million in exploration and feasibility work . . .
and $1 billion, or more, before mine construction is finished, and
minerals are produced in commercial quantities. We want to own the land
on which we will operate, because fragmented land ownership simply does
not promote efficient mine permitting and development. In addition, as
we will be intensively using the National Forest land for exploration
and mine development, it will become unusable by the general public due
to safety and operational concerns. In summary, Mr. Chairman, for
safety and many other reasons, we would like to own and control the
lands where we will be exploring, and hopefully re-opening, our mine.
Now, we realize that when we are asking to take land out of public
ownership, it is our duty, both under existing law and policy, to try
and return to the public lands that have even greater public values
than the lands we are receiving. We think we have done that.
As S. 2466 now stands, Resolution Copper has either purchased or
optioned 8 parcels of land, totaling approximately 5,539 acres, to
convey to the United States in the exchange. Whereas most of the Oak
Flat parcel, as its name implies, is relatively flat, and has no
permanent water--the 8 parcels we have assembled for exchange are
exceptionally rich in ecological, recreational and other values . . .
and many of them have significant water resources. Their attributes
include: 1) seven miles of river bottom and riparian land along both
sides of the free flowing San Pedro River; 2) two miles of riparian and
aquatic habitat along East Clear Creek in the Coconino National Forest;
3) one of the largest, and possibly most ancient, mesquite forests (or
bosques) in Arizona; 4) almost 1000 acres of extremely diverse
grassland habitat in the Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch--which is an
existing preserve jointly managed by the Forest Service, BLM and
Audubon Society inside the Las Cienegas National Conservation Area; 5)
four inholdings in the Tonto National Forest which have very
significant riparian, ecological, cultural, historic and recreational
amenities, including populations of the endangered Arizona hedgehog
cactus and a rare pond fed by a year-round stream; and 6) a 160 acre
parcel with cliffs for rock climbing that will be added to the proposed
rock climbing State Park which S. 2466 will help establish. We are
still working at acquiring a ninth parcel, which will be added to our
exchange package, and to the rock climbing State Park, if we are
successful.
All told, therefore, this land exchange will result in very
significant net gains to the United States in: 1) river bottoms and
sensitive riparian lands; 2) habitat, or potential habitat, for
threatened, endangered and sensitive species; 3) public recreational
opportunities; 4) cultural and historic resources; 5) habitat for
innumerable species of flora and fauna; and 6) year-round water
resources--a rarity in many parts of Arizona.
At this point, I would like to submit letters for your record from
Arizona Audubon, the Trust for Public Land, the Nature Conservancy, the
Sonoran Institute, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the
Superstition Area Land Trust further describing the ecological and
other benefits of the lands we have acquired for this exchange, and
strongly endorsing their acquisition by the public.
Mr. Chairman, we have also agreed to several provisions in S. 2466
which are designed to insure that the taxpayers get full fair market
value in this land exchange . . . and that any facilities or activities
we displace in acquiring the Oak Flat land are adequately replaced or
improved upon. I will briefly describe those provisions in the order
they appear in S. 2466:
<bullet> Subsection 5(a) of S. 2466 provides that all appraisals will
be conducted in accordance with U.S. appraisal standards, and
in accordance with Forest Service issued appraisal
instructions. Further, the appraisals must be formally reviewed
and approved by the Secretary of Agriculture, meaning that the
appraisal process will be under the Forest Service and
Secretary's of Agriculture's complete supervision and control.
<bullet> We realize that mineral appraisals can be difficult,
especially where unpatented Federal mining claims are involved.
Accordingly, we have agreed in subparagraph 5(a)(4) of S. 2466
to have the Oak Flat parcel, which is 75% overlain by our
mining claims, appraised as if our mining claims do not exist.
We believe that is an extremely significant concession on our
part. We agreed to it because we do not want any allegations
that the taxpayers are not getting full, unrestricted fair
market value for the land they are giving up in the exchange.
<bullet> To protect the portion of the Oak Flat parcel that comprises
the famous Apache Leap--a dramatic cliff area that is the
scenic backdrop to Superior, Arizona--we have agreed in Section
6 of the bill to a permanent 562 acre conservation easement
that will prevent us from ever disturbing the surface area of
Apache Leap. We have also agreed to have the entire 562 acre
conservation easement area appraised as if the easement were
not required. Once again, that guarantees that the United
States will receive full, unrestricted value for its land.
<bullet> Another issue which arose in our deliberations was the
replacement of the Forest Service's Oak Flat Campground, which
has 16 developed campsites on the land we are seeking to
acquire. To address that, subsection 8(a) of the bill provides
for a replacement campground or campgrounds, with Resolution
Copper paying up to $500,000 of the costs thereof.
<bullet> Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we are aware that the Oak Flat area,
as well as areas of our existing private land adjacent to Oak
Flat, are areas currently used for rock climbing. To
accommodate the loss of rock climbing, we have agreed to three
separate actions. First, subsection 8(b) of S. 2466 facilitates
the establishment of a new State Park in the Arizona State
Parks System near Hayden and Kearny, Arizona,
The Park will be dedicated to rock climbing and other outdoor
recreation. To assist in the Park's establishment, we have agreed to
pay up to $500,000 for a road to access the Park . . . and as
previously mentioned, we have already optioned a 160 acre parcel of
land for inclusion in the Park, and are working on acquiring a second
160 acre parcel.
To further accommodate rock climbing, we have just signed a private
license agreement with the Access Fund, which is an organization
representing U.S. rock climbers. The license authorizes continued rock
climbing on two parcels of our existing private land, and one parcel we
will acquire from the Forest Service. In that regard, I would like to
submit a letter we have just received from the Access Fund endorsing
the bill
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to
answer any questions the Subcommittee might have.
Senator Craig. Mr. Williams, thank you very much.
Now, let us turn to you, Laura.
STATEMENT OF LAURA KAMALA, DIRECTOR OF UTAH PROGRAMS, GRAND
CANYON TRUST, CASTLE VALLEY, UT
Ms. Kamala. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
speak on behalf of S. 2788, the Utah Recreational Land Exchange
Act, which my organization strongly supports.
The Grand Canyon Trust, now in our 21st year, is a non-
profit conservation organization headquartered in Flagstaff, AZ
with an office in Moab, UT. Our mission is to protect and
restore the Colorado Plateau, its spectacular landscapes,
flowing rivers, clean air, diversity of plants and animals, and
areas of solitude and beauty.
S. 2788 will protect valuable recreational lands, critical
watersheds, cultural resources, essential wildlife habitat,
lands of extraordinary scenic beauty and lands in Wilderness
Study Areas by conveying sensitive State-owned lands in the
Colorado River corridor and near Dinosaur National Monument and
in the Butte cliffs to the Bureau of Land Management. This area
is currently a checkerboard of Federal lands and Utah State
Trust Lands, which the State is mandated to manage for benefits
of Utah's school children by raising dollars for the Permanent
School Fund. This is accomplished primarily through leasing the
lands for minerals development or selling the lands for private
development. Since conservation dollars cannot keep pace with
the disposition of State lands, the proposed land exchange is
the only viable way to keep such a broad and cherished
landscape from becoming fragmented. Preservation of this
landscape is in the interest of members of the Grand Canyon
Trust and the American public, since the existing Federal
estate in southeast Utah is a national treasure.
I would also like to submit, if I may, to you, Mr.
Chairman, a copy of this book by the photographer, Tom Till,
``In the Land of Moab'', which illustrates many of the
properties that are proposed for exchange.
Senator Craig. Thank you. We'll make that a part of the
record.
Ms. Kamala. In addition, protecting the above stated land
values is consistent with Grand County's economy, which is
based on tourism. In 2005, the Governor's Office of Planning
and Budget reported the tourism industry provided $100 million
to Grand County's economy, which is significant for a small
Utah town. And I've also heard from business owners in town,
this year, that their business is up 10 to 15 percent.
SITLA, or Utah State Trust Lands, will receive Federal oil
and gas development property in Uintah County, slated for
development regardless of ownership, ensuring new revenues for
the beneficiaries. We support this public benefit for education
in the State of Utah. In Uintah County, minerals development is
the primary force in the local economy.
Cooperating with Grand Canyon Trust, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance and Utah Wilderness Coalition, Utah State
Trust Lands vetted the proposed exchange lands, and these
groups now approve of the map and the selected lands. Grand
Canyon Trust also worked with The Nature Conservancy and the
Utah Natural Heritage Program to map threatened, endangered and
sensitive species, both plant and animal, on the proposed
exchange lands, and using current data, we found no habitat
overlap on lands that SITLA would acquire for development,
while TES species do exist on lands being conveyed to the BLM,
where they would better protected under Federal law.
Since the House hearing on the proposed legislation in
September 2005, Grand Canyon Trust has attended meetings of the
House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health and we are very
grateful to the staff and the agencies for their cooperation
with one another and the many hours of time that were devoted
to making a better bill, which is reflected in S. 2788.
Grand Canyon Trust supports the fair and equal exchange of
values for the trade. We also support the rolling conveyance of
the lands as provided in the legislation.
There have been numerous acquisitions of SITLA lands in
Grand County in recent years by individuals and conservation
organizations for the purpose of preserving open space and
recreational lands, for protecting watersheds and wildlife
habitat. This reflects a very strong desire and commitment of
private resources for protecting this spectacular landscape.
As Director of the Southeastern Branch of Utah Open Lands,
I was deeply engaged in several conservation initiatives,
raising millions of dollars to purchase SITLA lands. In the
current economy, it has become difficult to procure funding for
conservation initiatives, and legislative land exchanges are
now a very important conservation tool.
The Grand Canyon Trust also supports the withdrawal of oil
and gas leasing on BLM lands in the Castle Valley municipal
watershed where 5,280 acres of SITLA lands are slated to be
conveyed to the BLM. The town of Castle Valley has a Sole
Source Aquifer designation from the Environmental Protection
Agency and a Pristine Water designation from the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality. Recent hydrological
studies by the Utah Geological Survey show that the aquifer is
vulnerable to contamination due to fractured geology. We also
support oil and gas leasing withdrawals on recreational lands
in the exchange where mineral values are low to negligible, as
under section 6(a)(2)(b) of the bill.
And in closing, Mr. Chairman, the Utah Recreational Land
Exchange Act has a very broad coalition of support, from rural
Republican county commissioners to conservation organizations.
In the State of Utah it is rare to have consensus of this kind
for a public lands proposal. Our colleagues at The Nature
Conservancy, Utah Open Lands, Red Rock Forests, and the
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance are supporting this bill, S.
2788. Grand, Uintah and San Juan counties, the town of Castle
Valley, the city of Moab, the Governor's Task Force on Outdoor
Recreation, Utah Guides and Outfitters and tourist-dependent
businesses in southeast Utah all support the legislation. The
Grand Canyon Trust believes that S. 2788 provides the
opportunity for a successful legislative land exchange to take
place and we look forward to that eventual outcome. Thank you,
again, for the opportunity to speak.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kamala follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura Kamala, Director of Utah Programs,
Grand Canyon Trust, on S. 2788
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak on behalf of S. 2788 the Utah Recreational Land
Exchange Act of 2006, which my organization strongly supports.
The Grand Canyon Trust, now in our 21st year, is a non-profit
conservation organization headquartered in Flagstaff, Arizona with an
office in Moab, Utah. Our mission is to protect and restore the
Colorado Plateau--its spectacular landscapes, flowing rivers, clean
air, diversity of plants and animals, and areas of solitude and beauty.
S. 2788 the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2006 will
protect valuable recreational lands, critical watersheds, cultural
resources, essential wildlife habitat, lands of extraordinary scenic
beauty and lands in Wilderness Study Areas by conveying sensitive
state-owned lands in the Colorado River corridor to the Bureau of Land
Management. The area is currently a checkerboard of federal lands and
Utah State Trust Lands (SITLA) which the state is mandated to manage
for benefit of Utah's school children by raising dollars for the
Permanent School Fund. This is accomplished primarily through leasing
the lands for minerals development or selling the lands for private
development. Since conservation dollars cannot keep pace with the
disposition of state lands, the proposed land exchange is the only
viable way to keep such a broad and cherished landscape from becoming
fragmented. Preservation of this landscape is in the interest of
members of the Grand Canyon Trust and the American public, since the
existing federal estate in southeast Utah is a national treasure.
In addition, protecting the above stated land values is consistent
with Grand County's economy, which is based on tourism. In 2005, the
Governor's Office of Planning and Budget reported that the tourism
industry provided $100 million dollars to Grand County's economy. This
year, tourism related business owners have told me their business is up
10 to 15 percent.
SITLA will receive federal oil and gas development property in
Uintah County, slated for development regardless of ownership, ensuring
new revenues for their beneficiaries. We support this public benefit
for education in the state of Utah. In Uintah County, minerals
development is the primary force in the local economy.
Cooperating with Grand Canyon Trust, Southern Utah Wilderness
Alliance and Utah Wilderness Coalition, SITLA vetted the proposed
exchange lands and these groups now approve of the selected lands.
Grand Canyon Trust worked with The Nature Conservancy and the Utah
Natural Heritage Program to map TES (Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive)
species, both plant and animal, on the proposed exchange lands. Using
current data, we found no habitat overlap on lands SITLA would acquire
for development while TES species do exist on lands being conveyed to
BLM where they would ostensibly have better protection under federal
laws.
Since the House hearing on the proposed legislation in September
2005, Grand Canyon Trust has attended meetings of the House
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health. Committee staff and
officials from Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management
and Utah State Trust Lands have revised HR 2069 the Utah Recreational
Land Exchange Act of 2005, to address issues raised at the House
hearing. We are grateful to the staff and agencies for their
cooperation with one another and many hours of time devoted to drafting
a better bill which is reflected in S. 2788.
Grand Canyon Trust supports the fair and equal exchange of values
for the trade. We also support rolling conveyance of the lands as
provided in the legislation.
THE LANDSCAPE
In southeast Utah, the spectacular 1200 square mile basin of
Canyonlands National Park lies at the geographic heart of the Colorado
Plateau. Here, 300 million years of geologic history are revealed in
the deep canyons of the Colorado and Green Rivers. The downward cutting
movement of the rivers and their tributaries, through layers of
sedimentary rock, continues to form one of the largest and most
intricate canyon systems on earth. Upstream on the Green River are
Labyrinth and Stillwater Canyons, and on the Colorado River, the twin
jewels of Arches National Park and Westwater Canyon. S. 2788 will
consolidate federal lands for consistent management in this landscape
of the Colorado River corridor.
This extraordinary geologic province is filled with the greatest
density of natural arches in the world; Morning Glory Arch and Corona
Arch will be conveyed to the federal estate in the proposed exchange.
Pinnacles, rock fins, grottos, balanced rocks, hoodoos and natural
bridges abound, sheltering a richness of species in diverse habitats.
Mountain ranges provide watersheds that give life to the adjacent
desert country. Vast expanses of bare red rock are broken by lush
riparian areas, ephemeral pools, grassland and sage steppes. In this
land of extremes, temperature fluctuations of 50 degrees in one day are
common, animals and plants have evolved unique adaptations to survive
and many of these species are endemic to the region. In addition,
southeast Utah contains one of the world's great archaeological
districts where priceless treasures from the past are abundant. S. 2788
will convey lands like these to the BLM where they can be managed to
protect their values for the American public.
CONSERVATION VALUES
There have been numerous acquisitions of SITLA lands in Grand
County in recent years by individuals and conservation organizations
for the purposes of preserving open space and recreational lands, for
protecting watersheds and wildlife habitat. This reflects a very strong
desire and commitment of private resources for protecting this
spectacular landscape. Lands offered in the exchange will have higher
or lower conservation values; it is the appraiser's job to determine
these values. Developers and even Off Highway Vehicle groups have
outbid conservationists and purchased SITLA lands in the area for their
private uses. Conservation sales can be comparable sales in a very
competitive market.
As Director of the Southeastern Branch of Utah Open Lands, I was
deeply engaged in several conservation initiatives, raising millions of
dollars to purchase SITLA lands. In the current economy it has become
difficult to procure funding for conservation initiatives, legislative
land exchanges are now a very important conservation tool.
Approximately 350,000 acres of SITLA lands remain in Grand County and
some naturally possess conservation values, such as those adjacent to
Arches National Park. It would be impossible to purchase all sensitive
SITLA lands to protect them, therefore the Grand Canyon Trust and other
conservation organizations working in the state support successful land
exchange legislation as a common sense solution for protecting these
important landscapes.
MANAGEMENT OF CONVEYED LANDS
Southeast Utah's living Eden of canyons mesas and deep river gorges
attracts recreational users from all over the world who come to hike,
mountain bike, climb, run rivers, ride horses, ski and explore via
jeeps and all-terrain vehicles. In recent years, an exponential
increase in visitation to the public lands has demonstrated the
necessity for good planning to accommodate the multiple use mandates on
federal lands.
The Moab BLM Field Office is currently revising its Resource
Management Plan. Lands being conveyed to the BLM in the exchange will
be managed according to the plan that is now being designed for lands
currently in BLM ownership which surround the proposed exchange
parcels. The Moab BLM planning team has stated that, in the Colorado
River corridor, they are working to be consistent with the Three Rivers
withdrawal signed by Secretary Norton in September 2004. This
withdrawal protects two hundred miles of Colorado, Green and Dolores
River corridors and an additional fifty miles of side canyons from
nuisance mining claims on locatable minerals for twenty years. Moab BLM
planners have written special management designations into their
preferred alternative, which they revealed at a Grand County meeting
this Spring, to protect scenic and recreational values in the river
corridor.
Grand Canyon Trust supports the withdrawal of oil and gas leasing
on BLM lands in the Castle Valley municipal watershed where 5,280 acres
of SITLA lands are slated to be conveyed to the BLM. The Town of Castle
Valley has a Sole Source Aquifer designation from the Environmental
Protection Agency and a Pristine Water designation from the Utah
Department of Environmental Quality. Recent hydrological studies by the
Utah Geological Survey show that the aquifer is vulnerable to
contamination due to fractured geology. We also support oil and gas
leasing withdrawals on recreational lands in the exchange where mineral
values are low to negligible.
CLOSING
The Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2006 has a very broad
coalition of support, from rural Republican county commissioners to
conservation organizations. In the state of Utah it is rare to have
consensus of this kind for a public lands management proposal.
Conservation organizations were involved early on with the design of
the legislation and the process has been transparent. Our colleagues at
The Nature Conservancy, Utah Open Lands, Red Rock Forests and Southern
Utah Wilderness Alliance join us in supporting S. 2788. Grand, Uintah
and San Juan counties, the Town of Castle Valley, the City of Moab, the
Governor's Task Force on Outdoor Recreation, Utah Guides and Outfitters
and tourist dependent businesses in southeast Utah also support the
legislation. The Grand Canyon Trust believes S. 2788 provides the
opportunity for a successful legislative land exchange to take place
and we look forward to that eventual outcome.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
Now let's turn to Mr. Andrews, associate director, School
and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, State of Utah.
John, welcome to the committee.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. ANDREWS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, UTAH SCHOOL
AND INSTITUTIONAL TRUST LANDS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify. I'd also like to thank Senator Bennett and his
staff for their long and tireless efforts in bringing this
proposal to where it is today.
The School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration,
SITLA, manages 3.5 million acres of State lands in the State of
Utah that are dedicated to the financial support of public
schools and other public institutions. Most of the State Trust
Lands in Utah are checkerboarded among BLM lands. That has
created the significant management problems over the years,
both for BLM and for the State. The BLM's management objectives
are multiple use, often including recreation and conservation.
Our mandate is to provide revenue for the public school system.
Those conflicts have, as Senator Bennett indicated, created
a situation where large-scale land exchanges are a necessary
solution for resolving significant, long-standing problems.
This exchange is a proposal that meets that goal. As Ms. Kamala
and other witnesses have indicated, this is the rare situation
in Utah Public Lands Management where there is a broad
consensus. The Utah Public Lands are notoriously controversial
among the various constituencies. We have found unity here.
Particularly since the time that the House bill was heard
last September, we have worked for many hours and we greatly
appreciate the large amounts of time that the Department of the
Interior, the BLM, the environmental community, and both the
majority and minority staff on the House side have spent to
bring this legislation along.
In particular, since that hearing, we have added
significant lands to the exchange. We have added lands that are
valuable open space in the vicinity of the city of Moab. We've
added lines in the Behind-the-Rocks Wilderness Study Area and
other scenic areas. Where we did identify lands that might have
a conflict with threatened and endangered species, we removed
those from the exchange.
Similarly, we have added very significant provisions for
public input and review of appraisal documentation and for the
creation of resource reports that will permit the relevant
Congressional Committees and the general public to have review
of specific resources on the Federal lands that are being
conveyed. That has been a major change.
Finally, we have dropped previously controversial language
dealing with the valuation of conservation lands. We have
instead incorporated the provisions of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act and the associated valuation regulations.
The result is that we will have a very transparent and
independent valuation process that will both involve the
Interior Appraisal Services Directorate and independent
appraisers. A clear and transparent and independent valuation
will be the model in this exchange.
We recognize that there will remain a few minor questions
and concerns, which I can address, although, to some extent,
Mr. Calvert particularly has addressed some of the mineral
valuation issues. But we believe that, even at this point,
we've come 98 percent of the way.
There is another reason, though, that there's a broad
consensus on this exchange and that's the lands that are
involved. The lands that will be exchanged to the United States
are truly spectacular. I think that anywhere but in Utah, they
would, in themselves, be a national park. Our testimony has
appended to it, and Ms. Kamala has also provided, additional
photographs that show the outstanding nature of the lands.
Corona Arch, Morning Glory Arch, they're some of the largest
free-standing natural arches in the United States.
At the current time, of course, in school trust ownership,
the lands are dedicated by Federal law and by the Utah
Constitution to the production of revenue. We recognize that
these lands are best suited in Federal ownership and this
exchange is designed to promote that.
I would be happy to answer any questions that the committee
would have with respect to mineral valuation. Our proposal, as
Mr. Calvert has noted, and Senator Bennett, it's a simple and
fair solution for complicated problem. It will keep the U.S.
Treasury whole, for as long as minerals are produced, it will
keep revenues flowing into the Federal Treasury, as would have
been the case had the lands had been retained in Federal
ownership.
We ask for the committee's support for that provision
particularly and for the legislation in general. Thank you very
much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Andrews, Associate Director, Utah School
and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, on S. 2788
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I would also like to thank Senators
Bennett and Hatch of the Utah Congressional delegation, and their
colleagues in the House of Representatives, for their work and
assistance in connection with the legislation now before the
Subcommittee.
My name is John W. Andrews, and I am the Associate Director of the
Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (``SITLA''),
an independent state agency that manages more than 3.5 million acres of
state school trust lands within Utah that are dedicated to the
financial support of public education.
THE PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE
I encourage the Subcommittee, and Congress, to act favorably on S.
2788, the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2006. This legislation
is the product of several years of discussions between the State, local
governments, the environmental community, and federal land managers. At
a time when most issues relating to Utah's public lands are accompanied
by controversy and dispute, the proposed exchange is supported by rural
county governments, various environmental groups, representatives of
the outdoor recreation industry in Utah, and the Utah legislature. We
have worked hard to put together an exchange that will be fair and
transparent financially, workable in implementation, and conducive to
more effective land management by both state and federal governments.
We believe that the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act meets all of
these goals.
In summary, S. 2788 authorizes the conveyance to the United States
of approximately 42,342 acres of Utah state school trust lands and
minerals within and near Utah's Colorado River corridor, the Book
Cliffs, and areas near Dinosaur National
Monument. In return, the State of Utah will receive approximately
40335 acres of federal lands in eastern Utah with lesser environmental
sensitivity but greater potential for generating revenue for Utah's
public education system--the purpose for which Congress originally
granted trust lands to Utah and the other western states.
REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY-INTRODUCED LEGISLATION
The proposed Act was originally introduced in 2005 as S. 1135, and
companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives as
H.R. 2069. The House Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health held a
hearing on H.R. 2069 on September 27, 2005. In response to testimony
from the Department of the Interior (``DOI'') and several environmental
organizations at that hearing that raised concerns about specific
provisions of H.R. 2069, the House Subcommittee invited interested
parties to work with subcommittee staff and the State to attempt to
resolve these concerns. The committee discussions included both
majority and minority subcommittee staff, representatives of DOI and
the Bureau of Land Management (``BLM''), Utah state government, and
several environmental organizations.
After multiple meetings and telephonic conferences, and many hours
of discussions and negotiations, the various parties reached compromise
legislative language that we believe resolves all of the primary
concerns raised by DOI and the environmental community in connection
with H.R. 2069. These compromises are reflected in the proposed
legislation now before the Senate as S. 2788. In particular, S. 2788
incorporates the following changes from H.R. 2069:
(1) S. 2788 drops controversial language providing for
exceptions from appraisal standards for lands with
``conservation values'', instead requiring for such lands the
use of the same appraisal standards utilized in BLM regulations
for land exchanges conducted under the Federal Lands Policy &
Management Act (``FLPMA''). These regulations allow the
consideration of non-economic values such as scenery,
wilderness and other aesthetic factors when determining the
value of land, to the extent that such factors add value in the
marketplace, without the necessity of special legislative
exceptions.
(2) The revised legislation adds various additional lands to
the land exchange package, including state lands requested for
transfer into federal ownership by the BLM and the
environmental community. These additional state lands include
popular recreation lands in Mill Creek Canyon outside Moab,
state lands in Mineral and Horseshoe Canyons above the Green
River, and lands in the Behind-the-Rocks wilderness study area.
Some federal lands were also dropped from the exchange to
prevent conflicts with other resource values, such as rare
plant populations and wild horses.
(3) S. 2788 also adds provisions for public notice of the
availability of the independent appraisals to be conducted as
part of the exchange process, and for the completion of
resource reports detailing, for each parcel of land being
conveyed out of federal ownership, significant resource values,
based on resource information and inventories currently
possessed by DOI. These resource reports will also be made
available to the public. The exchange legislation does not
require NEPA compliance, but the resource report provisions
will provide detailed resource information to Congress and the
public as this transaction works through the exchange process.
The legislation also now contains requirements to notify the
relevant Congressional committees and publish in a newspaper of
general circulation if any lands are added or subtracted from
the exchange during the equalization of value stage of the
exchange.
(4) In response to concerns raised by the environmental
community, the revised legislation also contains provisions for
the permanent withdrawal from mineral entry of certain of the
most sensitive lands being conveyed by the State to the United
States. All other lands will be withdrawn pending completion of
revised land use plans by BLM to determine appropriate
management of the lands.
REASONS FOR THE LAND EXCHANGE
It is worthwhile and necessary to describe the lands that are
involved in the exchange, although the accompanying photographs make it
clear that these lands are in many ways beyond description. The
Colorado River corridor is a uniquely scenic area in a state known for
its scenic beauty. Huge redrock arches such as Corona and Morning Glory
arches are found in proximity to the deep canyons carved by the
Colorado river as it winds downstream from the Colorado border to
Canyonlands National Park. The area supports thriving recreational
activities, including whitewater rafting in the Westwater wilderness
study area and downstream, mountain biking on the famous Kokopelli and
Slickrock bike trails, and myriad other activities. The importance of
outdoor recreation in the area to local economies and the state as a
whole has led the Utah Governor's task force on outdoor recreation to
designate the area as one of Utah's critical focus areas for promotion
and protection of recreation opportunities.
The majority of land in the Colorado River corridor is federal land
managed by BLM. A notable exception is the Utah school trust lands
scattered in checkerboard fashion throughout the area. As the
Subcommittee is aware, state school trust lands are required by law to
be managed to produce revenue for public schools. Revenue from Utah
school trust lands--whether from grazing, surface leasing, mineral
development or sale--is placed in the State School Fund, a permanent
income-producing endowment created by Congress in the Utah Enabling Act
for the support of the state's public education system.
In contrast to state lands, BLM lands are managed for multiple use,
with an emphasis in this area on recreation and conservation use.
Limitations on the use of surrounding federal lands, through
establishment of wilderness study areas, areas of critical
environmental concern, or mineral withdrawals can limit the usefulness
of the inheld state trust lands for economic uses such as mineral
development. Likewise, state efforts to generate revenues from its
lands through sale of the lands for recreational development and
homesites have been viewed by federal land managers as conflicting with
management of the surrounding federal lands. Over the years, disputes
over access to and use of state school trust lands within federally-
owned areas have generated significant public controversy, and often
led to expensive and time-consuming litigation between the State of
Utah and the United States.
Land exchanges are an obvious solution to the problem of
checkerboarded state land ownership patterns. Exchanges can allow each
sovereign--the State of Utah and the United States--to manage
consolidated lands as each party's land managers deem most advisable,
without interference from the other. In the last eight years, the State
of Utah and the United States worked successfully to complete a series
of large legislated land exchanges. In 1998, Congress passed the Utah
Schools and Land Exchange Act, Public Law 105-335, providing for an
exchange of hundreds of thousands of acres of school trust lands out of
various national parks, monuments, forests and Indian reservations into
areas that could produce revenue for Utah's schools. Then, in 2000,
Congress enacted the Utah West Desert Land Exchange Act, Public Law
106-301, which exchanged over 100,000 acres of state trust land out of
proposed federal wilderness in Utah's scenic West Desert for federal
lands elsewhere in the region.
The hallmark of each of these exchanges was their ``win-win''
nature: school trust lands with significant environmental values were
placed into federal ownership, while federal lands with lesser
environmental values but greater potential for revenue generation were
exchanged to the State, thus fulfilling the purpose of the school land
grants--providing financial support for public education.
RESPONSE TO LAND EXCHANGE CONTROVERSIES
More recently, a proposed state-federal land exchange involving
state trust lands in Utah's San Rafael Swell area failed due to
questions raised about its financial fairness and environmental
effects. We recognize that the controversy over the San Rafael proposal
raised many questions about land exchanges generally. In working to
develop the current exchange proposal, the State of Utah has worked
hard to address the issues raised in the aftermath of the San Rafael
proposal. In particular, we have sought to work closely with local
governments and citizens, the environmental community, and local BLM
offices to obtain consensus about the lands to be included in the
proposed exchange. On the issue of valuation, we are committed to an
independent and transparent appraisal process that will fully involve
the Department of the Interior's new Appraisal Services Directorate
(``ASD'') in developing and reviewing appraisals for the properties
involved in the exchange. As noted above, since the time that this
legislation was originally introduced, we have continued to work with
Congressional staff from both parties, DOI and the BLM, local
communities, and the environmental community to ensure that any
questions or concerns are addressed. With the various changes from the
original legislation, we believe that S. 2788 would authorize and
direct a fair and equitable land exchange that is clearly in the
interest of both the citizens of the United States and of Utah's school
children.
VALUATION
The legislation contemplates that all lands included in the
exchange will be subject to independent appraisals using the existing
appraisal standards contained in FLPMA and its implementing regulations
prior to conveyance, and that the lands to be exchanged will be
conveyed on an equal value basis. The independent appraisal will be
subject to review by each party (including the DOI-ASD), and any
disputes over valuation will then be subject to resolution through
established dispute resolution mechanisms.
The legislation contains two valuation provisions that may require
some further explanation. The first relates to mineral lease revenue
sharing under the federal Mineral Leasing Act. Certain of the federal
lands are prospective for oil & gas development, and are currently
under federal mineral lease. Under section 35 of the federal Mineral
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191), the federal government is required to
pay 50 per cent of all bonus, rental and royalty revenue from federal
lands to the state in which the lands are located. Under Utah statute,
these revenues are largely distributed from the state Mineral Lease
Account to local counties to mitigate community impacts of energy
development. These distributions are a crucial funding source for rural
public land counties.
The proposed legislation would keep this revenue stream to rural
counties intact by adjusting values proportionately to reflect the
United States' obligation to share 50% of all revenue from the lands.
Put another way, those federal lands found to have mineral values would
be valued taking into account the United States' existing statutory
obligation to pay 50% of the revenue from the lands to the State for
distribution to the counties. Utah's school trust would collect these
revenues and distribute them in the same manner as federal mineral
lease funds, so the school trust would not receive any additional
benefit from this provision. Similarly, the proposed legislative
language would be revenue-neutral to the United States, because the
United States currently retains only 50% of mineral revenue from the
subject lands.
There is specific precedent for adjustment of mineral land
valuation to take into account the preexisting obligation of the United
States to share revenue with the states under the Mineral Leasing Act.
For example, section 8(c) of the Utah Schools and Lands Improvement Act
of 1993, Pub. L. 103-93, provides that if the State shared revenue from
selected federal properties, the value of the federal properties would
be adjusted downward by the percentage of state revenue sharing. The
Utah Schools and Lands Exchange Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-335, ratified
an agreement between the State of Utah and the Department of the
Interior containing similar provisions. State revenue sharing payments
have also been recognized and protected in land exchange legislation
involving states other than Utah. See e.g. 16 U.S.C. 46011-3(b)(3)
(Montana's right to receive cash payment for coal tracts used as
exchange consideration protected).
A second mineral issue involves the bill's provisions obligating
the State to pay to the United States future mineral revenues from
currently unleased federal lands, in a share equal to what the United
States would have received had the lands been retained in federal
ownership. This payment obligation eliminates the need to appraise
leasable mineral values under those lands, since the United States will
continue to receive all leasable mineral revenues it would have
received notwithstanding the exchange.
Significant portions of the federal lands to be transferred to Utah
are currently not leased for oil, gas or other hydrocarbon minerals
(e.g. tar sands, oil shale), but are thought to be prospective for such
minerals. Appraisals of prospective but nonproducing mineral lands are
expensive and inherently unreliable due to the many unknowable
variables involved in determining potential resources and their
likelihood of production. To avoid the expense and potential
controversy that could arise from appraisal of these non-producing
resources, section 5(b)(4) of the proposed legislation (page 9, line 24
of S. 2788) proposes an alternative means of compensating the United
States for leasable minerals underlying currently unleased federal
lands. The lands will be appraised for surface values and for all
minerals other than minerals leasable under the federal Mineral Leasing
Act. Upon acquisition of the lands, the State also commits to pay the
United States all revenue that the United States treasury would have
received from leasable minerals had the U.S. retained ownership of the
lands, i.e. 50% of bonuses and rentals, and a share of royalties equal
to the federal share of production royalties (6.25% in the case of oil
and gas, less for tar sands and oil shale). The U.S. treasury is thus
held harmless with respect to the exchange. The State of Utah's school
trust would also continue to pay the 50% state share to the Utah
mineral lease account.
These provisions leave Utah's school trust with a commitment to pay
the United States and the State of Utah's mineral lease account all
amounts that could be derived from the lands under federal law.
However, because the school trust has legal flexibility to issue leases
for royalty rates greater than permitted under existing federal law, it
hopes to achieve some economic return from leasable minerals on the
subject lands based upon this flexibility. This risk is solely borne by
the Utah school trust; the legislation commits the required payments to
the United States as a covenant running with the land. The U.S. is thus
compensated for leasable minerals on the subject lands as if it
retained ownership (as well as being paid appraised surface values and
non-leasable mineral values. Again, this provision is revenue neutral
to the United States.
POST-EXCHANGE LAND MANAGEMENT AND WILDERNESS
Substantial portions of the state trust lands to be exchanged to
BLM are located in wilderness study areas (``WSAs'') created under
Section 603 of FLPMA, or areas proposed for wilderness in pending
federal legislation. Other portions are not within proposed wilderness.
The legislation provides that exchanged lands that lie within existing
WSAs or other formally-designated federal areas will automatically
become part of those areas upon conveyance. For other state lands
exchanged to BLM, some lands recognized by the parties to have special
significance, as designated on the exchange map, will be withdrawn from
mineral entry by the terms of the legislation. For all other state
lands exchanged to BLM, the lands will be withdrawn pending revisions
of BLM's resource management plans to determine appropriate management
of the lands. The proposed exchange is not intended as an endorsement
of any particular configuration of wilderness, which is a matter that
is for Congress to decide at some future time. Rather, the intent of
the exchange is to allow BLM land managers to determine, on a landscape
scale, how best to manage the lands without having to deal with inheld
state trust lands.
CONCLUSION
S. 2788 represents a significant great step toward simplifying land
management in Utah, protecting Utah's natural heritage, supporting
local economies through increased opportunities for outdoor recreation,
and adequately funding public education. It is the product of public
outreach and compromise that has led to a better proposal than
originally crafted. I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to approve it
expeditiously.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
Senator Craig. John, thank you very much for that
testimony.
A few questions of the panel. Mayor, let me turn to you. I
can see why you and the entire town of Superior are so
supportive of this exchange. I also note that you will be
involved in helping the Forest Service identify a new
campground to replace Oak Flats. You've heard that the Forest
Service wants to expand the area to find a replacement
campground from the Globe District to the entire Tonto National
Forest, as well as their desire to have more time to get the
campground identified and built. If they can't find a
replacement area on the Globe District, how would you feel
about that?
Mr. Hing. Well, I would strongly disagree moving the
campground site outside the Globe District. I think the whole
purpose was that the town was willing to give up the Oak Flats
area, which was kind of a refuge place for the town, as a
gathering point for the community. And to see it move further
away, out of the Globe District, to me, is not--at this time is
suitable, because the fact is we look at that campground as an
area that is a gathering point for our community.
My understanding is that the time when the campground sites
became an issue, the company showed us the JI Ranch, which was
spectacular, because of the fact that it was just a few more
miles up the road, beautiful scenery, and water, which the Oak
Flats didn't have. And at the time, the council was actually
torn between two areas. I favored a campground site near the
town of Superior because the fact is we could develop it
economically for our community as a place rather than a ``place
for us just to feel good about.'' And Resolution came back to
us and said, well, let's do two. I was like, OK, you mean two
campgrounds? And they said, sure.
So I'm pleased to say that they're willing to finance two
new campground sites. To me, that is very amazing. One, a place
up the road from the Oak Flats area and a place west of town,
which initially was possibly the Arizona Trail Area, which the
Governor designated as one of the view points for the State of
Arizona. But I recently have been working with the U.S. Forest
Service in that area and they're trying to develop the
protection of an existing old community that existed west of
the town, which was called Pinal City or Pinal Town. And
talking with them, I just suggested, why don't we look at
moving the campground site near what you want to propose to
protect, which is the Pinal Town site, and we can run this as a
project together?
Knowing that, south of the Pinal Town site is water and
trees and they call that the Green Gates Area, which is a
beautiful area also, and to develop that and then border our
town, the town can work with the U.S. Forest Service in
managing it. So, to me, to have the idea to move it out of the
Globe District, I would oppose that, because the fact is, we
are willing to work with the Forest Service on an adjacent
campground site near Superior, as well as the town giving up
Oak Flats, and the JI Ranch seems to be a very suitable spot
for the replacement.
Senator Craig. OK. Well, Mayor, thank you for those
observations. I think they're important for the record.
Mr. Williams, as I see it, your company has turned
somersaults and is willing to do back flips to facilitate this
exchange. You've offered to build roads, trails, campgrounds
and find an alternative rock climbing area, not to mention the
number of private parcels you've offered in exchange. Given the
flexibility your company has shown in working with Senators Kyl
and McCain and the Congressmen on this proposal and the town, a
skeptic can conclude that there is something more than copper
in the ground under Oak Flats campground. I also checked the
price of copper. So, I understand--and I mean this very
sincerely--there is substantial values there, again, today.
What would happen if everything but the Oak Flats Campground
could be included in the exchange?
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated
earlier--and thank you for those kind words, by the way. As I
indicated earlier, we consider this to be a high-risk project.
We do not, in fact, know if there is mineral under the
campground. That is one of the reasons we seek to explore in
that area, because of the high-risk nature. And there is high
financial risk, high technical risk, and there is certainly a
public safety risk associated with that. We really believe we
need to have secure title on the entire parcel. I think one of
the reasons that you see the flexibility we've demonstrated is
really our commitment to that goal. And therefore we would
compromise the entire project, I believe, if we were not
successful in this land exchange.
Senator Craig. OK. Am I correct that under current law you
would mine under most of the 3,025 acres other than the Oak
Campground withdrawal, even if the exchange did not go forward?
Mr. Williams. There is an option. One of the three options
available to us certainly would be to file a plan of operations
with the Forest Service and proceed in that direction. Once
again, we believe that the secure title to the site really
gives us the ability to mine. Whether we would mine under the
full acreage or not is uncertain. We know for certain one
thing: that we've established a conservation easement along
significant features, including the Apache Leap, which would
forever bar any sort of mineral interference with that rather
notable feature. There are some other aspects of that agreement
that would make certain that those key natural resources are
always left in tact.
Senator Craig. OK.
Mr. Williams. I wonder if I could just add one other thing,
if I could.
Senator Craig. Please do.
Mr. Williams. I think I misspoke when I described our
appraisal process. I think I said that the property would be
appraised as if no minerals were on the properties, and I
should've said as if no mineral claims were on the property.
I'd just like to correct that.
Senator Craig. OK. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much.
Now let me turn to the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act.
Laura, it's my understanding that there is broad support within
the environmental community on this legislation. Do you and
your organization feel that the process thus far and the public
notification provisions of the legislation have been--are
sufficient for the public to be informed regarding the
transaction?
Ms. Kamala. We do now, Mr. Chairman. That has been amended
since the introduction of H.R. 2069 in the House, and that was
part of the work that was done in the Subcommittee meetings and
we're satisfied that it's in good shape now.
Senator Craig. OK. Should this legislation become law, are
you satisfied that there will be adequate opportunity for
additional public review and input as these exchanges are
finalized?
Ms. Kamala. Yes. There is a provision in the bill for
public input when the lands are being conveyed, rolling
conveyances, and the public will be able to comment during that
process when the appraisal process is going on and if, to
equalize valuation, lands will need to be either dropped from
the map or added. That's a point where we could have continued
input.
Senator Craig. OK. Well, thank you for your involvement in
this.
John, please explain to the committee the public outreach
and the process that the--what's the acronym here? How do you
pronounce it?
Mr. Andrews. School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration, SITLA.
Senator Craig. SITLA, all right. And the process SITLA has
performed that brings this land exchange before the Senate.
Mr. Andrews. We recognized that past land exchange
proposals have been controversial and one of the controversies
has been claims that there was not adequate public process.
Almost 4 years ago, we began community outreach in Grand
County, UT, where the bulk of the lands are located. We
convened a community meeting. We involved representatives of
the environmental community, the Grand Canyon Trust, the
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Sierra Club, and just
plain old interested citizens. It was advertised locally and we
asked for a round-table, anyone who wanted to attend, could
attend. We also, of course, brought in interested members of
the Grand County Council. As we moved forward in those
discussions over a period of a year or two, we realized that an
administrative land exchange, under current processes, did not
and would not work given the scale of what everyone hoped could
be accomplished. And that was the point at which we went the
legislative route.
Once we made that determination, we involved a variety of
other groups: certainly, the other affected county commissions
in Utah; our Governor--first Governor Levitt, and now Governor
Huntsman--have convened the Governor's Task Force on Outdoor
Recreation, very broadly represented--county commissioners, the
outdoor industry, everyone from ATV users to wilderness users
and everyone in between. We have been involved with that group,
and similar groups had public hearings at the Utah legislature
and obtained Utah legislative support of this. We've run the
gamut.
Senator Craig. Good, good. Could you further explain the
mineral valuation process relating to the un-leased lands as
part of the exchange and how they differ from traditional
mineral appraisals?
Mr. Andrews. Certainly. Both Senator Bennett and Mr.
Calvert have also touched on this, but I'll try to clearly
respond. Traditional mineral appraisals for undeveloped
speculative minerals can be very, very uncertain. There is no
way to know what the value of the minerals will be until they
are produced. That inherently leads to both great expense in
trying to guess and leads to conflict because the answer is
unknowable until the production occurs. This bill's provisions
would provide that the U.S. Treasury would receive--collected
by the State of Utah and distributed to the U.S. Treasury--all
revenue that the United States would have received had the
lands remained in Federal ownership at the current royalty
rate.
So, the United States gets X amount in royalties. We would
make a commitment to pay that identical amount in perpetuity
for as long as those minerals were produced. In fact, that
could lead to significantly increased cash-flow to the Treasury
because of that long-term commitment. I think what Mr. Calvert
and DOI's testimony recognized is that under traditional
appraisal methodology, the United States would essentially
receive zero for any oil shale resources on the lands or any
tar sands resources on the lands because production of those is
a number of years out. This would allow them to----
Senator Craig. That's correct, we don't understand values
there.
Mr. Andrews [continuing]. To receive that. That is the
difference.
Senator Craig. OK. Your testimony discusses appraisal
language that tells appraisers to utilize their own regulations
to consider non-economic values. Can you explain this further?
Are we asking appraisers to put a value on scenic quality?
Mr. Andrews. The current Federal regulations provide that
the appraiser will consider scenic and natural wilderness and
other values to the extent that those values can demonstrably
be linked to prices paid for similar properties in the
marketplace. That is the valuation process that will be used.
We're essentially doing exactly what the existing BLM
regulations provide, rather than anything new or different from
that accepted standard.
Senator Craig. John, thank you very much.
To all of you, let me thank you for your presence here and
to the extent to which you've worked to not only participate in
preparing this legislation, but also your testimony today. It's
valuable to the committee and the record as we move forward on
this legislation. Again, thank you very much and we will accept
any additional information into the file of the committee on
these pieces of legislation. The committee will stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Hon. Mike Johanns to Questions From Senator Bingaman
s. 2466--southeast arizona land exchange
Question 1. Your testimony states that the ``Department believes
the acquisition of the non-federal 1parcels to be managed by the Forest
Service in is the public interest . . .'' Just to clarify, is it the
Department's view that the exchange as a whole, including the
conveyance of National Forest System lands to Resolution Copper, is in
the public interest?
Answer. It is the Department's view that the exchange as a whole is
in the public interest. The National Forest System lands identified for
exchange are within the ``Globe Copper District,'' a highly mineralized
area in the State of Arizona of national significance for ore deposits
containing copper, silver and gold. This area's importance to the
economic vitality of Arizona is historical and today remains a very
active mining area, providing a major contribution to the nation's
mineral production.
Resolution Copper intends to construct a mine to provide the
country with copper, which will in turn benefit the community of
Superior economically. Additionally, there may be a benefit to Gila
County tax base if the federal land is conveyed into private ownership.
Most of the non-federal properties which would be acquired have high
public resource values and would provide benefits in public ownership.
National Forest System land in the Oak Flat area is not identified
by the Tonto National Forest as base-for-exchange or otherwise
considered for disposal. In addition, in 1955 the Forest acted to
protect the Oak Flat Campground by withdrawing it from mineral entry
(P.L. 122) under the 1872 Mining Act.
Question 2. You indicate that it may be difficult to find a
suitable replacement for the Oak Flat Campground within the Globe
Ranger District. How much use does the current campground receive and
how detrimental will it be for public recreational opportunities in the
area if you are unable to find a suitable replacement campground?
Answer. Oak Flat Campground is the only campground providing
overnight single family camping between the Phoenix metro area and
Globe. The 16 campsites within the campground are not under a
reservation system, so use figures can only be estimated. The
campground is used year-round by single family campers and heavily used
in spring and fall by groups of 50-100 people associated with churches,
family reunions, and organization such as the Boy Scouts. Most users
come from the Phoenix metropolitan area. Two permitted commercial
outfitter-guide operations lead bouldering and rock climbing clients in
the Oak Flat area. The Phoenix Boulder Blast event is held at Oak Flat,
drawing 800-1000 people annually. The Central Arizona Trials
Association (an off highway vehicle organization) uses Oak Flat twice a
year for events with 40-50 people each. Off highway vehicle users make
extensive use of the motorized trial system accessible only through the
Oak Flat area.
The Tonto National Forest has aggressively sought a replacement
location for the Oak Flat Campground to meet the needs of users who
would be displaced should S. 2466 become law. Options are limited by
terrain and access. Resolution Copper suggested locating replacement
facilities on one of the non-federal properties (II Ranch) in the
legislated exchange proposal. However, this location is adjacent to a
residential area and current residents have voiced their opposition to
a campground bordering their property.
There are currently two locations near Superior being considered.
One, on National Forest System land, would require about one mile of
access road construction, which would likely cost more than the
$500,000 identified in the bill for campground replacement. This
campground location would not provide the same caliber of rock
climbing/bouldering and off highway vehicle opportunities currently
available at Oak Flat and may not be accessible during winter months.
Another site has been located south of Superior that may better meet
user needs.
Question 3. In your opinion, if this legislation is enacted in its
present form, will the exchange be subject to the laws typically
applicable to land exchanges, including the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and National Historic Preservation Act?
Answer. While S. 2466 does not expressly exempt this land exchange
from NEPA, FLPMA, ESA or NHPA, the non-discretionary nature and
prescribed timeframes preclude the full process typically used to
analyze and approve a land exchange. The Department does intend to
fulfill its government to government and NHPA consultation
responsibilities with affected Tribes and State Historic Preservation
Officer. This will be achievable due to the amount of fieldwork already
accomplished related to cultural resources on the federal lands.
Processing requirements of FLPMA will be met if possible, where not in
conflict with the Act, and within the limitations of the one year
timeframe.
Question 4. The San Carlos Apache tribe has submitted a resolution
opposing the exchange and I understand that the tribe considers areas
within the Oak Flats site to be of cultural and religious importance.
Has the Forest Service consulted on a government to government basis
with the tribe concerning the proposed exchange? Does knowledge of the
tribe's concerns change the Forest Service's view of the
appropriateness of transferring the Oak Flats site out of Federal
ownership?
Answer. Since January 2004, the Tonto National Forest has consulted
with several tribes, including the San Carlos Apache tribe, on a
government-to-government basis during development of this proposal. The
tribes (white Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, Tonto Apache,
Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
Gila River Indian Community, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,
and the Hopi and Zuni tribes) were provided copies of the
archaeological survey report for comment, initiating formal and
informal consultation that continues.
The Forest is currently engaged in a series of ongoing meetings
with elected tribal representatives, cultural representatives, council
members, and elders to discuss and identify appropriate research
questions and methods for conducting the next phase of archaeological
and ethnographic investigation.
Question 5. Section 5(a)(4) of S. 2466 directs that the value of
the Federal land conveyed to Resolution Copper shall be determined ``as
if the land is unencumbered by any unpatented mining claims of
Resolution Copper.'' Is that standard agency appraisal practice?
Answer. The Forest Service has appraised a number of mineralized
properties, either encumbered or unencumbered with unpatented mining
claims. It is standard agency practice to appraise the property in the
condition that title will be conveyed from the United States to the
non-Federal party. The Forest Service appraises mineralized properties
using the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions.
Section D-11 specifically addresses Valuation of Mineral Properties.
Appraising this specific property considering the proposed language
cited--above may make the assignment less complex and could result in a
more reliable opinion of market value.
Question 6. The bill calls for the United States to convey its
reversionary interest in the 265-acre Superior Airport tract. Would you
please describe the reversionary interest and its history?
Answer. The United States Conveyed the property now known as the
Superior Municipal Airport to Pinal County in 1952 under authority of
the Federal Airport Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 170). The deed of conveyance
contained the following stipulation:
``. . . The property interest herein conveyed shall
automatically revert to the Untied States of America pursuant
to Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act, supra, in the event
that the lands herein described are not developed, or cease to
be used, for airport purposes; and the party of the second
part, for itself and assigns, agrees by the acceptance of this
deed, or the rights granted herein, that a determination by the
Administrator of Civil Aeronautics, United States Department of
Commerce, or his successor in function, that the lands have not
been developed, or have ceased to be used, for airport purposes
shall be conclusive of such fact . . .''
In 1997 Pinal County transferred ownership of the Airport to the
Town of Superior. The Town has expressed interest in developing the
parcel for other than airport use. The Forest Service has advised the
Town that such action would not be consistent with the terms of the
airport deed. The language in S. 2466 would therefore, be necessary for
the Town of Superior to make us of the tract
Question 7a. As I understand it, the copper deposit that underlies
the Federal land is reportedly a world-class deposit. At the same time,
Resolution Copper has described the considerable technical and
financial challenges associated with mining it. Resolution Copper is
reportedly prepared to invest billions of dollars in the effort.
Are the agency's uniform appraisal standards and practices well-
suited to accurately value this exchange?
Answer. The agency's appraisal standards are the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (UASFLA). The Forest Service
also has supplemental standards for appraisal of mineralized properties
that are consistent with the umbrella UASFLA. Whatever opinion of
market value is approved for agency use will be supported and will be a
reliable opinion of market value.
Question 7b. Has the Federal Government ever conducted an appraisal
of an ore body of this magnitude and complexity?
Answer. There has been considerable speculation about the
characteristics of this ore body and the appraisal assignment. The
requisite mineral reports that must be prepared as part of the
appraisal assignment will help define both-the magnitude and complexity
of the assignment. The Forest Service has reviewed appraisals of large-
scale ore bodies that were very complex appraisal assignment.
Question 7c. Will the appraisal likely be based in part on
consideration of royalty rates charged on private and/or State lands?
Answer. Section D-11 of the UASFLA.discusses how a proper royalty
rate should be derived from comparable transactions and how those data
must be evaluated in the income capitalization approach. The appraiser
will seek to abstract royalty rate information from the private market
and will analyze those data in that context.
Question 8. Do you believe that S. 2466's provisions in section 6
governing the conservation easement for Apache Leap ensure adequate
protection of the cultural, scenic, historic, recreational, and natural
resources of the Apache Leap area?
Answer. Section 6 of S. 2466 is not specific in regard to the
protections provided in the conservation easement.
However, the scenic resource of Apache Leap, as viewed from a
distance, will probably be adequately protected by this provision. Some
recreational interest, although probably not all, will likely be
protected.
The conservation easement provisions appear limited regarding
future protection of cultural, historical, traditionally gathered
resources and natural resources of the Apache Leap area. The boundaries
of the conservation easement are not specific. Management principles
for the easement that call for specifically protection and preserving
significant natural resources, tribal places, Traditional Cultural
Properties or archaeological sites are not addressed. Additionally,
more specific restrictions could be identified to protect these
resources. The conservation easement allows for development of
administrative and recreational facilities, including motorized access
roads, with no stated criteria for their development or placement
beyond a determination made by Resolution Copper and the easement
grantee based upon unspecified consultation with the Town of Superior
and unspecified ``other interested parties.'' If the rationale for the
conservation easement is to mitigate potential effects of removing the
parcel from federal ownership and protection, then those parties whose
interests might be affected by the conveyance should be identified and
involved in consultations on easement management.
______
Responses of Laura Kamala to Questions From Senator Bingaman
S. 2788--UTAH RECREATIONAL LAND EXCHANGE ACT
Question 1. Section 4 of S. 2788 requires the Secretary of the
Interior to accept an offer from the State of Utah to exchange the
lands described in the bill ``notwithstanding any other provision of
law.'' This provision appears to waive many of the laws generally
applicable to land exchanges, including the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered
Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, among others.
Does the Grand Canyon Trust support the waiver of these laws with
respect to this land exchange? If so, why?
Answer. As a rule, Grand Canyon Trust does not support the waiver
of NEPA, FLPMA, ESA, NHPA or any other laws designed to protect natural
and cultural resources and ensure public participation. In the present
case, we note that the proposed exemption from these laws affects only
the selection of the lands for exchange, not their management. The
process for identifying lands suitable for exchange under S. 2788 has
had a great deal of public scrutiny and input over nearly three years,
and that public involvement is extensively embedded in the legislation.
Groups reviewing and commenting on the process and legislation include
Grand County, Uintah County, San Juan County, Castle Valley Town, Moab
City, Governor Huntsman's Task Force on Outdoor Recreation, Utah Open
Lands, The Nature Conservancy, Utah Natural Heritage Program, Center
for Native Ecosystems, Utah Wilderness Coalition, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, Grand Canyon Trust, Utah Guides and Outfitters,
Outdoor Industry Association, affected ranchers, Grand County resort
and tourist business owners, Moab Field Office Bureau of Land
Management and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. In the case of
S. 2788, we believe there has been more than adequate public
participation and oversight in the selection of lands proposed for the
exchange. Once lands are exchanged between SITLA and the BLM, the
agencies will still be required to manage conveyed lands in accordance
with the above statutes and other applicable laws. For example, SITLA
is subject to the provisions of the Endangered Species Act with respect
to threatened and endangered species of animals (we note that our
organization and others have conducted extensive surveys with respect
to threatened, sensitive and endangered plants, and determined that no
such species will be negatively affected by the exchange.) We also
understand that BLM will in fact engage in a NHPA process in connection
with the exchange, and SITLA is in any event subject to state-level
cultural resources protection statutes and regulations that provide a
process analogous to NHPA.
Question 2. Your testimony states that S. 2788 ``will protect
valuable recreational lands, critical watersheds, cultural resources,
essential wildlife habitat, lands of extraordinary scenic beauty and
lands in Wilderness Study Area by conveying sensitive state-owned lands
in the Colorado River Corridor to the Bureau of Land Management.'' Most
of the lands to be acquired by the United States are not permanently
withdrawn from oil and gas development and nothing in the bill requires
the BLM to manage the lands to protect the values you cited in your
testimony. Why is the Grand Canyon Trust confident that these lands
will be permanently managed to protect those resources and values?
Answer. The answer to this question can be found in the fundamental
reason for the exchange: the BLM will consolidate its management of
extraordinarily high value recreation lands that are severely
threatened with private real estate development on SITLA inholdings;
and SITLA will acquire lands that will generate revenues for its
beneficiaries without compromising the conservation values we cited in
our testimony. This is possible because the SITLA lands proposed for
exchange, despite their attractions for developers, have negligible oil
and gas resources. This fact has been confirmed by SITLA consulting
geologists, by the records of all exploratory wells drilled in the
area, and by the BLM. Conversely, the lands SITLA will acquire are
either in a town, adjacent to an airport, or in developing oil and gas
fields, all of which can produce revenue without degrading watersheds,
wildlife habitat or recreational opportunities.
The Moab Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management is
completing an oil and gas management plan as part of their new Resource
Management Plan. Reflecting the low hydrocarbon potential and high
recreation values, the Preferred Alternative will either close oil and
gas leasing (for lands in Wilderness Study Areas) or place a No Surface
Occupancy stipulation on most of the lands in this exchange. Most of
the other lands managed by the Moab Field Office will remain open to
oil and gas leasing and development under the plan. The Utah State
office of the BLM has approved of the proposed alternatives, the
Washington, D.C. office of the BLM has approved of the direction of the
alternatives and the local county government has approved of the
Preferred Alternative.
Grand Canyon Trust prefers to have oil and gas lease closures
provided by S. 2788 on lands proposed for exchange to the BLM,
specifically a select list of lands under section 6(a)(2)(B); however
we believe that even without such closures the threat of hydrocarbon
development on these parcels is minimal compared with the very real
threat of private real estate development if the lands remain with
SITLA.
______
Responses of Hon. Lynn Scarlett to Questions From Senator Bingaman
S. 2788--UTAH RECREATIONAL LAND EXCHANGE ACT
Question 1. Section 4 of S. 2788 requires the Secretary of the
Interior to accept an offer from the State of Utah to exchange the
lands described in the bill ``notwithstanding any other provision of
law.'' This provision appears to waive many of the laws generally
applicable to land exchanges, including the National Environmental
Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Endangered
Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, among others.
Does the Department support the waiver of these laws with respect to
this land exchange? If so, why?
Answer. The laws referenced above provide authorities and
responsibilities to the Executive Branch from Congress for the
management and disposition of Federal lands and resources. These laws
govern and limit the discretion of executive actions and decision-
making processes as they relate to Federal land management. However,
when the Congress directs a conclusive action--such as in this
exchange--its intent may be to override such authorities and
responsibilities. The Department does not generally support waiving the
aforementioned statutes, however, we support the Congress being clear
in its direction and expectations for the management of the public
lands. The legislation should be clear where it intends to direct an
outcome and where it intends the agency to use its discretion. To do
otherwise may result in confusion for the agency and outcomes that were
not intended by Congress.
Question 2a. Your testimony references the Department's policy
guidance with respect to legislative exchanges and land valuation
issues and describes the two alternative valuation proposals. You note
that ``the policy specifically prohibits the use by the Department of
alternative methods of valuations in appraisals. However the policy
recognizes there may be times when Congress will direct, or the
Department will propose, the use of alternative methods of valuation in
appraisals.''
Why does the Department's appraisal policy prohibit the use of
alternative valuation proposals?
Answer. By Secretarial Order Number 3251, and in accordance with
Sec. 206 of FLPMA, the Department requires that all real estate
appraisals must be performed pursuant to the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions or the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice. Alternative methods of valuation (AVM)
are inconsistent with these national appraisal standards. To
incorporate these methods into an appraisal would be misleading. The
policy specifically describes situations in which Congress might direct
the use of an alternative valuation method other than or in addition to
an appraisal. The policy is in place to ensure that no one will be
mislead into recognizing the results of an AVM as an indication of
market value. This general policy underscores the importance of
adhering to applicable appraisal standards in developing applicable
legislative provisions and to ensure that land transactions are
conducted with integrity, transparency, and earn public confidence.
However, the Department also recognizes that in some cases, AVMs may be
appropriate and has issued an Order, Number 3258, directing how those
cases should be handled. That order was attached to the Department's
testimony provided on May 24, 2006.
Question 2b. What are the disadvantages of using either of the
alternative methods referenced in S. 2788?
Answer. There are both advantages and disadvantages associated with
using either of the AVMs referenced in S. 2788, just as there are
advantages and disadvantages associated with establishing a value
strictly derived from the Uniform Standards. The legislative provisions
in S. 2788 would require the BLM to adjust the appraised value in order
to reach the desired legislative outcome. As stated in the testimony,
Sec. 5(b)(4) would require that for Federal lands not under mineral
lease at the time of appraisal, the lands will be valued without regard
to the presence of any minerals that are subject to leasing under the
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. In exchange for this potential reduction
in value, the State or its successors in interest to the property would
agree to pay the United States 50% of whatever bonus or rentals are
paid to the State for mineral development in the future and to pay an
amount equal to the Federal royalties that would have otherwise been
collected by any future mineral development. The benefit of using this
AVM is that the Federal government would retain a royalty interest in
minerals, including oil shale, after the conveyance. To the extent that
oil shale or other mineral resources might not be valued under a
standard appraisal, this protects the Federal government's potential
interest in the future development of the resource--even if it is not
immediately foreseeable and valuable. The disadvantage of using this
method is that the Federal government will have an obligation in
perpetuity to ensure that revenues derived from mineral development on
the property are properly paid in accordance with the Act.
The second AVM, found in Sec. 5(b)(6)(B), would reduce the
properties market value (based on an appraisal) by an amount equal to
what would otherwise be the State's future share under Section 35 of
the Mineral Leasing Act. The benefit of using this alternative method
is that it recognizes the equities inherent in the Mineral Leasing
Act--which does not create a State-share entitlement per se, but
creates an expectation that revenues from Federal mineral leasing will
accrue to the State. With that expectation, it is reasonable to
understand why the State would not want to ``pay'' for a share of the
royalty stream up front that it would otherwise receive under the
status quo. The apparent disadvantage to using this method is that the
overall value of the Federal lands to be conveyed will be less and
thereby result in fewer acres coming into the Federal estate as part of
an equal-value transaction. That apparent disadvantage may, however, be
an equitable outcome if one considers that an appraisal would not
recognize the ongoing statutory obligation of the Federal government to
share the future royalty stream that provides value to the property.
Question 2c. With respect to each of the proposed alternative
valuation methods, I would like to know whether the Department
recommends that the Committee approve or reject that method, and why.
Answer. The Department has not recommended using any specific
alternative method of valuation because the Department is not the
proponent of this legislation. In accordance with Secretarial Order No.
3258, if the Department proposes the application of alternative methods
of valuation that require Congressional authorization, the Department
shall expressly describe to the appropriate committees of Congress the
AMVs applied, and explain how they differ from standard appraisal
methods. This same obligation arises when providing views to Congress
on proposals initiated outside the Department, and we have supplied
that. As stated above, there are benefits and disadvantages associated
with deviating from the standard methods in both cases. The Department
recognizes the equities involved, and, as stated in the testimony
provided on May 24, 2006, the Department could support this legislation
using these alternative methods of valuation, with a minor modification
relating to future royalty rates.
Question 3. Is the requirement in section 5(b) for appraisals to be
conducted by independent third party appraisers selected jointly by the
Secretary and the State consistent with the Department's appraisal
policy?
Answer. Yes. The Department's policy addresses the use of third-
party appraisals and recognizes that they may assist in achieving
mutually beneficial outcomes for the Department and proponent.
Generally, as stated in Order No. 3258, Sec. 4(b), upon request, the
Department may review a third-party appraisal if: (a) the third party
consults with the Appraisal Services Directorate prior to the
initiation of the appraisal on the scope of work and the selection of
the appraiser, and they agree that the Department is both the client
for and an intended user of the appraisal; (b) a senior bureau or
Departmental manager has determined that the underlying land
transaction proposal comports with applicable missions; and (c) the
Appraisal Services Directorate has determined that the appraisal was
prepared by a certified appraiser and meets applicable standards.
Question 4. In your testimony on S. 2466, the Southeast Arizona
Land Exchange, you note that the non-Federal party to the land exchange
should reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for all of the
Department's exchange-related costs. That bill also requires the
Secretary of Agriculture to be reimbursed for ``all costs related to
the exchanges and conveyances, including appraisals and all other
reviews.'' In contrast, S. 2788 requires the Secretary and the State to
share third parry appraisal costs equally and contains no provision for
reimbursement of exchange-related costs. Why is this issue a concern
with respect to the Arizona exchange but not the Utah one?
Answer. The relevant distinction between the two bills is that the
land exchange envisioned in S. 2788 is with a governmental agency of
the State of Utah while the land exchange envisioned in S. 2466 is with
a private party.
Question 5a. Section 2(b) states that the purpose of the bill is to
acquire ``State trust land with important recreational, scenic, and
conservation resources for permanent public management and use.'' In
your testimony you state that the Department has ``serious concerns''
with a provision in the bill that would permanently withdraw certain
acquired State lands from the mineral leasing and mineral materials
laws.
If the Federal interest in the land exchange is to acquire lands to
protect their recreational, scenic, and conservation values, why
shouldn't those lands be designated for management consistent with
those values?
Answer. Some of the lands that the BLM would acquire under S. 2788
are checkerboard lands. In other words they are sections of 640 acres
scattered among existing BLM-managed public lands. Managing these
sections differently from the often identical lands surrounding them
could be difficult. Furthermore, the BLM is currently engaged in a
public planning process for the existing public lands which surround
most of the lands to be acquired. It is through this public process
that BLM answers questions about appropriate areas for permanent
withdrawal, and it provides all interested parties an opportunity to be
heard. The Department believes it is appropriate for these lands to be
considered in that overall context.
Question 5b. If the lands are not permanently withdrawn, is it
possible that the BLM's planning process might identify them as
appropriate for resource development, or potential future disposal?
Answer. The BLM's planning process could identify them for any of
the multiple uses authorized under FLPMA.
Question 6. Section 6(a) of S. 2788 either temporarily or
permanently withdraws the lands acquired from the State of Utah from
the mineral leasing and mineral material laws. However, is it correct
that the lands could still be subject to future disposal or transfer
out of Federal ownership, if the BLM desired?
Answer. The lands could be subject to future disposal or transfer
if so identified through BLM's planning process.
Question 7. Please identify which, if any, of the Federal lands
proposed to be exchanged under S. 2788 have not been identified by the
BLM as suitable for disposal? If there are any parcels which have not
been identified for disposal, are any of them managed to protect
special resources or values, or have other attributes which make them
unsuitable for transfer out of Federal ownership?
Answer. Approximately 8,400 acres of the acres identified for
exchange in the legislation were identified for disposal in the 1985
Book Cliffs Resource Management Plan. The remaining acres have not been
identified for disposal, but none of the remaining acres are within
ACECs or other special BLM designations.
Question 8. Your testimony briefly identifies the Federal parcels
to be transferred to SITLA and notes that 2,800 acres are suitable for
private agricultural development, 80 acres are suitable for private
development and that ``some'' of the approximately 40, 000 acres have
high energy potential. Approximately how many acres of BLM lands
proposed for exchange do you estimate to have high energy potential?
Answer. Our best estimate is that in excess of 35,000 of the acres
identified for exchange with SITLA have high energy potential for
either oil and gas or oil shale and tar sands. It should be noted,
however, that high potential does not necessarily equate to high
current market value for the property. This is relevant to the
discussion concerning oil shale. The contributory value of the oil
shale resources to the current market value of the property may be
limited due to the risks and costs associated with developing the
resource and the unknown timing of that development. These factors may
be measured in a market value appraisal through an examination of
comparable properties that have transferred in the market to the extent
that they exist and provide meaningful data.
Question 9. Your testimony notes that the under the authority of
section 206 of FLPMA, the BLM has exchanged several hundred thousand
acres of land. Does the BLM have adequate authority to complete an
administrative exchange? Why is this legislation necessary?
Answer. Many of the provisions of S. 2788 do not conform with the
requirements of administrative land exchanges including the proposed
alternative methods of valuation, and the proposed withdrawals.
Question 10. S. 2788 contains blanks for the map descriptions. Your
testimony references ``current maps created by the BLM, dated March 16,
2006.'' I assume these are the maps you are using in describing the
Federal and State lands to be exchanged. Please provide a copy of these
maps.
Answer. Copies of the map dated March 16, 2006, have been provided
to Senator Bingaman's Committee staff.
Question 11. Section 6(c) states that the land exchange ``shall be
considered to be in the public interest under section 206(a) of the
Federal Land Policy Management Act.'' Does the Department agree that as
set forth in S. 2788, this land exchange is in the public interest in
accordance with section 206(a) of FLPMA?
Answer. Section 206(a) of FLPMA states:
A tract of public land or interests therein may be disposed
of by exchange by the Secretary under this Act . . . where the
Secretary concerned determines that the public interest will be
well served by making the exchange: Provided, That when
considering public interest the Secretary concerned shall give
full consideration to better Federal land management and the
needs of State and local people, including needs for lands for
the economy, community expansion, recreation areas, food,
fiber, minerals and fish and wildlife and the Secretary
concerned finds that the values and the objectives which
Federal lands or interests to be conveyed may serve if retained
in Federal ownership are not more than the values of the non-
Federal lands or interests and the public objectives they could
serve if acquired.
We believe that this exchange meets those requirements.
S. 2466--SOUTHEAST ARIZONA LAND EXCHANGE
Question 1. Your testimony notes the Department's concerns with a
provision in section 8 of S. 2466 which requires the BLM to construct
the Tam 0-Shanter Access Road. Do you have an estimate of the cost of
constructing such a road?
Answer. As we noted in our testimony, we prefer to provide a right-
of-way over BLM-managed lands for the road rather than build the road.
Our best estimate at this time is that constructing the road as a
Federal project would cost between $1.2 and $1.5 million.
Question 2. Based on your testimony, I understand that the
Department of the Interior will prepare a mineral report for the land
exchange. Will the Department also be responsible for conducting the
appraisal of the minerals underlying the Forest Service property to be
exchanged or is that the Department of Agriculture's responsibility?
Answer. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for completing
the mineral report. It is then the responsibility of the BLM within the
Department of the Interior to review and approve the mineral report
which provides the final verification for the technical information to
be used in the appraisal. Ultimately it will be the responsibility of
the Department of Agriculture to complete the appraisal following
completion and review of the mineral report.
Question 3. Section 5(a)(4) of S. 2466 directs that the value of
the Federal land conveyed to Resolution Copper shall be determined ``as
if the land is unencumbered by any unpatented mining claims of
Resolution Copper.'' Is that standard agency appraisal practice?
Answer. The Bureau of Land Management and the Department of the
Interior have completed appraisals in recent years that both have and
have not taken into account unpatented mining claims. Both methods have
been used and there is not a standard practice.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
[Due to the amount of material received for this hearing,
only a representative sample of statements follows. Additional
documents and statements have been retained in subcommittee
files.]
Resolution of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors Endorsing the Land
Exchange, of Resolution Copper Company Properties, for Properties of
Federal and Non-Federal Ownership
RESOLUTION NO. 062205-CC
WHEREAS, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors has declared one of
its goals to be the advancement of environmentally sensitive economic
development; and
WHEREAS, the Resolution Copper Company has met or will meet or
exceed the requirements of all federal and non-federal regulatory
authorities, for the protection of valuable Arizona natural treasures;
and
WHEREAS, the growing recreational tourism activities, in the area,
will not be inhibited or adversely impacted by the land exchange and
these recreational tourism activities will be supported, by Resolution
Copper, for a time sufficient to allow for the transition of resources
and tourism support activities; and
WHEREAS,the Pinal County Board of Supervisors will direct staff to
continuously monitor the activities, of resolution Copper Company, to
assure adherence to the terms of this resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Pinal County Board of
Supervisors fully supports the land exchange between the Resolution
Copper Company, of Superior, Arizona and federal and/or non-federal
lands.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of June, 2005, by the PINAL COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
Sandie Smith,
Chairman of the Board.
______
Resolution of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache Indian
Reservation, San Carlos, AZ
NO: MAY-06-077
WHEREAS, the San Carlos Apache Tribe is a federally recognized
Indian Tribe organized pursuant to Section 16 of the Indian
Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 stat., 984); and,
WHEREAS, the San Carlos Apache Tribe recognizes their inherent
sovereignty to self-determination and their responsibility as
protectors of past, present, and future Apache generations and that the
role of cultural resources, language, and elements of the natural world
(i.e. air, water, animals, plants) are significant to the existence and
the spirituality of the Apache, and
WHEREAS, the San Carlos Apache Tribe recognizes, values, and
utilizes, traditional Apache resources both on and off the reservation
and is committed to protecting the spiritual and traditional resources
in and around Chich'il Bildagoteel (Oak Flat), which lies in the heart
of T'is Tseban Country. The Oak Flat region is bounded in the east by
Gan Bikoh (``Crowndancers Canyon''--Devil's Canyon) in the north by Gan
Daszin (``Crowndancer Standing''--Queen Creek Canyon), and
WHEREAS, tribal, state, and federal laws, such as the San Carlos
Apache Tribal Ordinance 76-1 Section 36, Tribal Codes, Arizona Revised
Statutes 41-846 and 41-864, the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), and Executive Order 13007, Protection of Indian Sacred
Sites, were created to protect and preserve cultural and historic
properties significant to the past, present, and future history of the
Indeh (Apache), and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; that the San Carlos Apache Tribe has
taken a stand to oppose the Southeastern Land Exchange.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: that the Indeh (Apache) oppose large-scale
mining proposed by Rio Tinto's Resolution Mining Company in the Oak
Flat vicinity, and strongly oppose the land exchange with the United
States Forest Service enabling this operation.
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned Secretary of the San Carlos Apache Tribe Council
hereby certify that the Tribal Council is presently composed of 11
members, of whom 6 constituting a quorum were present at a Special
Council meeting hereto held on the 22nd day of May 2006, and that the
foregoing Resolution No. May-06-077 was duly adopted by a vote of 5
for; 0 opposed; 0 abstained; of the Tribal Council pursuant to Article
V, Section 1 (a) of the Amended Constitution and Bylaws of the San
Carlos Apache Tribe effective February 24, 1954.
Beatrice Hendricks,
Acting Tribal Secretary.
______
Arizona State Senate,
Committee on Natural Resources and Rural Affairs,
Phoenix, AZ, March 14, 2006.
Hon. Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kyl: I write to express my strong support for the
federal land exchange package you are proposing between the United
States and Resolution Copper Company of Superior, Arizona. I am deeply
grateful for your hard work and close attention to this issue, as the
exchange will be very beneficial to the citizens of the State of
Arizona.
As you know, I have been working closely with officials from the
Arizona State Parks Board in the creation of state legislation, Arizona
Senate Bill 1550, to work in tandem with your exchange to create a new
rock climbing state park near the Town of Kearny, Arizona. Located
approximately 20 miles southeast of the federal. Oak Flat campground,
Kearny and nearby communities throughout the copper triangle region
would enjoy economic gains from the potentially high growth in
recreational tourism. This is a region that is not keeping up with the
job growth seen throughout the urban areas in our. great state. It
certainly goes without saying that further exploration and development
of the copper mine near.Superior in rural Arizona would also bring
sorely needed opportunities, particularly for our youth.
The land exchange package you have proposed is a tremendous win for
both the federal government and the State of Arizona. A significant
assortment of highly sought after private lands throughout Arizona will
be obtained by the federal government. A major economic engine will be
expanded in Superior, and rock climbers and tourists from around the
world will be welcomed to explore the rugged and beautiful terrain near
Kearny.
Thank you again, Senator, for your fine leadership in this vital
and exchange.
Sincerely,
Jake Flake,
Chairman.
______
Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources,
Phoenix, AZ, May 9, 2005.
Bruno Hegner,
Vice President and General Manager, Resolution Copper Company, Phoenix,
AZ.
Dear Mr. Hegner: The Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral
Resources (ADMMR) is submitting this letter in support of The Southeast
Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005. There are a number
of reasons we support this exchange. The following are five of the more
salient reason.
First, this land exchange will be of great economic benefit to the
State. Resolution has already spent $40 million in preliminary
evaluation and will spend $200 million to complete their exploration
and engineering phase. Investment in the development of the project
could easily exceed $2 billion.
Second, the project will strengthen the Arizona mining industry by
attracting professional technical staff, as well as miners, and will be
of great benefit-to the suppliers' network in the State.
Third, the project will greatly benefit the towns of Superior and
Globe and the Phoenix metropolitan area. The local area has been
financially troubled by the closing of the Magma Mine and other copper
mines in the area. The Resolution mine will initially employ 1,000
workers and provide 450 permanent, high-paying jobs. ADMMR is pleased
the company has already undertaken two voluntary remediation projects
at the existing mine site to protect the environment. Many of the
adits, tunnels, and other workings in Queen Creek from previous mining
activity will be closed or gated to retain their function as habitat
for bats, snakes, and other wildlife.
Fourth, copper is an essential metal with increasing demand in the
world economy for electrical and electronic products, and in
transportation equipment. Arizona supplies 65 percent of the.Nation's
domestic copper, but the United States is still not self-sufficient.
Development of the Resolution Copper deposit may remedy that situation.
Fifth, this land exchange places important riparian lands into the
public domain. The two main land parcels, the San Pedro and Appleton,
both serve as migratory stops for birds and also contain mesquite
bosques and grasslands.
If you or your staff wishes to contact me, I can be reached at
(602) 255-3795, Ext. 14.
Sincerely,
Nyal Niemuth,
Mining Engineer.
______
Office of the Governor,
Phoenix, AZ, February 7, 2005.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: I am writing to voice my support for the The
Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005.
This land exchange would place some of the most beautiful and
pristine lands in Arizona including important riparian habitat under
federal protection for conservation and recreation purposes. The lands
that would be secured by Resolution Copper Company would better
position the company for the production of the copper ore body, which
exists 7000 feet below the surface of both private and federal land.
This is a good exchange for Arizona.
In recent years, the small Arizona town of Superior has been
devastated by the deactivation of a nearby copper mine. Families have
separated and local commerce has almost disappeared and the town is
left with the unsightly remains of the deactivated mining operation.
Recently, the United States' largest diversified mining company, Rio
Tinto, discovered an ore body beneath the existing mine many believe
could be one of the largest in the world.
Rio Tinto's American affiliate, Resolution Copper Company, must
invest $100 million in exploration and engineering activities just to
determine how the mine can be built and successfully operated. As part
of the feasibility phase there are a number of outstanding issues they
must address including where they will obtain the water necessary for
the mining operation, where the water would be discharged and where
will they put the tailings from the new mine. Resolution Copper Company
seems committed to answering these questions and to conducting the
mining operation in a sustainable manner to minimize environmental and
economic impacts. To justify making an investment of this magnitude,
Resolution Copper needs access and control consistent with industrial
development of the surface lands above the proposed mine.
Resolution Copper has purchased several unique Arizona properties
for the purposes of embarking upon a federal land exchange, which are
contained in the bill. To make this package even more attractive,
Resolution Copper has agreed that if the private property value exceeds
the public land value, it will allow the excess value to be used by the
Town of Superior to secure lands integral to economic development of
the town and then donate the excess to the United States. The
legislation ensures that all required appraisals, land surveys, and
pre-existing inventories, clearances, reviews and approvals relating to
hazardous materials, threatened and endangered species, cultural and
historic resources, and wetlands and floodplains be conducted prior to
the consummation of the land exchange. Additionally, Resolution Copper
has agreed to exclude current mining claims from the appraisal of the
federal lands.
In exchange, the people of the United States and Arizona will
receive thousands of acres that offer some of the most unique natural
landscapes, wildlife and cultural values in existence.
There are clear benefits for the people of Superior, Arizona and
surrounding communities. The proposed mine development will create:
<bullet> Nearly 1,000 construction jobs
<bullet> More than 400 permanent, high-quality technical jobs
<bullet> Nearly 1,500 service-related positions
<bullet> Annual wages for hourly staff of approximately $60,000
<bullet> A much needed economic engine for the community
<bullet> Financial support for educational, recreational and other
community initiatives
This legislation will minimize the conflicts for the proposed
industrial development activities and recreational users. Resolution
Copper has agreed to participate financially in the relocation of a
local campground, secure a conservation easement for a nearby landmark,
and provide access to an alternative rock climbing area, a popular
sport near Superior.
I have personally met with Resolution Copper's Arizona management
and I recently made an economic development trip to London, where I
exchanged views with the top management of Resolution Copper's parent
company, Rio Tinto. I find their attitudes toward local community
sustainability and commitment to environmental protection refreshing. I
am encouraged that several of the most prominent conservation
organizations in Arizona have endorsed acquisition of these properties.
Finally, I find it promising that the leaders of Superior, Arizona
recently passed an enthusiastic resolution of support.
I urge your support and your co-sponsorship of this legislation and
look forward to discussing this matter with you directly, or your staff
can contact my Chief of Staff, Dennis Burke, at 602-542-1498, email
dburke@az.gov.
Thank you for considering this request.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano,
Governor.
______
Statement of Jason Keith, Policy Director, The Access Fund, on S. 2466
The Access Fund, America's largest national climbers organization,
welcomes the opportunity to submit this testimony for inclusion into
the public record regarding S. 2466, the Southeast Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act of 2006.
THE ACCESS FUND
The Access Fund is the only national advocacy organization whose
mission keeps climbing areas open and conserves the climbing
environment. A 501(c)3 non-profit organization supporting and
representing over 1.6 million climbers nationwide in all forms of
climbing rock climbing, ice climbing, mountaineering, and bouldering--
the Access Fund is the largest US climbing organization with over
15,000 members and affiliates.
The Access Fund promotes the responsible use and sound management
of climbing resources by working in cooperation with climbers, other
recreational users, public land managers and private landowners. We
encourage an ethic of personal responsibility, self-regulation, strong
conservation values and minimum impact practices among climbers.
Working towards a future in which climbing and access to climbing
resources are viewed as legitimate, valued, and positive uses of the
land, the Access Fund advocates to federal, state and local legislators
concerning public lands legislation; works closely with federal and
state land managers and other interest groups in planning and
implementing public lands management and policy; provides funding for
conservation and resource management projects; develops, produces and
distributes climber education materials and programs; and assists in
the acquisition and management of climbing resources. For more
information about the Access Fund, log on to www.accessfund.org.
INTRODUCTION
Located near Queen Creek Canyon in the Tonto National Forest, the
Oak Flat Campground area has the distinction of being the location for
a world-class rock climbing and bouldering destination as well as the
site of a massive copper ore deposit deep beneath the surface.
The Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2006,
S. 2466, is designed to transfer the Oak Flat Campground to Resolution
Copper Company (RCC) in return for a number of private land parcels in
Arizona. Being a mining company, RCC will most likely develop Oak Flat
into a copper mine. Depending on how and when RCC pursues the copper
ore located several thousands of feet below Oak Flat, such pursuit
could result in the single largest loss of a climbing resource in the
history of the United States.
Due to the Access Fund's negotiations with RCC and the thoughtful
efforts of the entire Arizona congressional delegation, Senator Kyl
inserted a placeholder provision entitled ADDITIONAL ROCK CLIMBING
PROVISIONS in the initial version of the bill, S. 1122. Thanks to
everyone's continued efforts, we believe that the present version of
the bill (S. 2466) now contains adequate language requiring the
establishment of replacement climbing resources. Additionally, the
Access Fund and RCC have negotiated a recreational use license that
maintains climbing access to Oak Flat unless mining activities render
the property unsafe.
THE OAK FLAT CAMPGROUND AND RECREATION AREA
The federal government has long acknowledged the outstanding value
of the Oak Flat area as a recreational resource. In 1955 the Eisenhower
Administration executed BLM Public Land Order 1229 (20 FR 7336) which
specifically put this land off-limits to all future mining activity.
The Nixon Administration subsequently issued BLM PLO 5132 (36 FR 19029)
in 1971 to modify PLO 1229 and allow ``all forms of appropriation under
the public land laws applicable to national forest lands--except under
the U.S. mining laws.''
The Oak Flat Campground and nearby Devil's Canyon are unique
recreational sites frequented by bird watchers, climbers, hikers, dirt-
bike riders, campers, canyoneers, and other recreational user groups.
Within a convenient one-hour drive of Phoenix the 5th largest city in
the United States--Oak Flat is an irreplaceable recreational asset for
the millions that live in central Arizona as well as the thousands more
that travel there from out-of-state.
Although perhaps best known for its unique rock climbing, bird
watchers also frequent Oak Flat. Many rare and interesting birds have
been seen at Oak Flats, including four species, which are on the
national Audubon Society's ``watchlist'' of species that are declining
and are of a national conservation concern. Oak Flat Campground is a
``hotspot'' listed on Maricopa Audubon Society's birding website for
Arizona.
At the greater Queen Creek/Oak Flat area there are nearly 3,000
exceptional climbing routes and ``bouldering problems'' which was the
site of the world's largest annual outdoor rock climbing competition,
the Phoenix Boulder-Blast (www.boulderblast.com). At the 2004 event,\1\
over 700 climbers from around the world competed and hundreds more came
just to watch the action and enjoy the matchless natural surroundings.
Part of what makes Oak Flat special for rock climbing is not only its
proximity to Phoenix but also the ideal layout of cliffs and boulders
that lend themselves to both climbing and ``bouldering.'' Oak Flat is
also one of three climbing areas that are on the ``winter circuit'' of
climbers that travel year-round.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 2005 Phoenix BoulderBlast was cancelled in part because of
the controversy surrounding the mining proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ACCESS FUND'S SAVE OAK FLAT-ADVOCACY ISSUE
The Access Fund first heard about the potential land exchange in
2004 and Save Oak Flat has been a leading advocacy issue ever since
because of the potential to be the largest loss of climbing resources
in U.S. history. Our Save Oak Flat advocacy effort has included
numerous action alerts to our membership and a petition drive
collecting over 1,500 local Arizona signatures. This campaign involved
many congressional meetings, work with Arizona environmental and
conservation groups, and the Arizona Mountaineering Club. We also met
with the Arizona governor's office, the Arizona state legislature, and
local government executives, as well as with the Tonto National Forest.
Over the course of the last 2\1/2\ years we also met numerous times
with RCC and their representatives.
In response to RCC's mining proposal, in 2004 the Access Fund
helped found the Friends of Queen Creek (www.friendsofqueencreek.org),
a nonprofit advocacy organization formed to preserve public
recreational access to the Oak Flat Campground area with over 1,000
members. Like the Access Fund, the Friends of Queen Creek is not an
anti-mining group, but rather advocates for multiple uses of public
lands in the larger Queen Creek Canyonl0ak Flat area.
After months of public advocacy and negotiating with RCC to
maintain some public access to Oak Flat, in May of 2006 with the
assistance of Senator Kyl the Access Fund and RCC executed a public use
license for continued recreational access to the Oak Flat parcel and
two other climbing locations in nearby Queen Creek Canyon.
THE OAK FLAT RECREATIONAL USE LICENSE
The Access Fund's Oak Flat license with RCC exemplifies how
cooperative negotiations can produce acceptable compromises for public
land uses that seemingly conflict. In this case, RCC will obtain title
to a profitable mining parcel while climbers will be allowed continued
recreational access to Oak Flat and environs. The significant
provisions of this license are as follows:
<bullet> RCC will allow public access for bouldering and rock
climbing to the Oak Flat parcel, in addition to two other
parcels already owned by RCC and used by the public for
recreation.
<bullet> This license is revocable at anytime by either party, but
with a provision for license renewal beyond the stated five-
year term.
<bullet> The Access Fund will work with the Friends of Queen Creek
and RCC to ensure that the terms of the license are complied
with and that protocol is followed to manage risk and adjust
climbing access.
<bullet> The Access Fund will also work with the Friends of Queen
Creek and RCC to fulfill stewardship projects at Oak Flat and
Queen Creek Canyon.
The Access Fund is encouraged that this agreement will remain in
place at Oak Flat so long as it is safe for climbing to take place
commensurate with RCC's exploration and mining activities. Furthermore,
we hope that Arizona climbers will be able to permanently enjoy
climbing at The Pond and Atlantis (the two additional parcels also
included in the license) since they are currently very popular climbing
areas and not within the scope of BCC's future mining plans.
Although initially there was significant disagreement between the
Access Fund and RCC regarding an appropriate compromise for continued
public use of the Oak Flat parcel, the Access Fund greatly values RCC's
efforts to address the concerns of climbers. In addition to supporting,
both conceptually and financially, a new Arizona state park that
provides new climbing opportunities,\2\ RCC has, more importantly,
worked hard with the Access Fund to negotiate the terms of the
recreational use license for Oak Flat. Indeed, RCC agreed that the
license would have an opportunity for renewal beyond the initial five-
year term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ S. 2466 provides replacement rock climbing at what will become
known as Tam O'Shanter State Park. This 2,000 acre park will be
established for public or recreational purposes, specifically, and as
authorized by the State legislature, rock climbing and bouldering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
In short, the Access Fund's mission to maintain climbing access and
preserve the climbing environment was achieved to the extent possible
in this challenging situation. This was due, in large part, to the
willingness of the Arizona congressional delegation, as well as RCC, to
recognize the value of Oak Flat as a world-class climbing resource and
not just a source of mineral wealth. While we feel that we have made
the best of an unfortunate situation (securing temporary public access
to a popular recreation area that may eventually be lost), credit is
certainly due to RCC for their willingness to consider the interests of
the American climbing community. In the future the Access Fund will
continue to advocate diligently preserving our public resources.
Accordingly, while the Access Fund does not generally endorse land
exchanges that dispose of public recreation lands, we are pleased that
RCC sought to address our concerns by providing replacement climbing
areas and by entering into a recreational use license that preserves,
at least temporarily, public access to Oak Flat for climbing and
bouldering.
Chairman Domenici and members of the Subcommittee on Forests and
Forest Health, the Access Fund thanks you for the opportunity to
provide testimony on the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and
Conservation Act of 2006.
______
The Nature Conservancy,
Phoenix, AZ, September 24, 2004.
Mr. Bruno Hegner,
Vice President and General Manager, Resolution Copper, Phoenix, AZ.
Re: ``Seven B'' property, Lower San Pedro River, Mammoth, Arizona
Dear Mr. Hegner: In March of this year, Resolution Copper Mining
acquired the ``Seven B'' property from BHP Copper, Inc. As you know,
the 3,073 acres of the ``Seven B'' property contains nearly seven miles
of the lower San Pedro River as well as over 800 acres of ancient
intact mesquite bosque representing what is probably the largest
remaining high-quality mesquite forest remaining in Arizona.
The riparian habitat associated with the San Pedro River corridor
through the ``Seven B'' property, along with its adjacent and
contiguous mesquite bosque, represent the two most important wildlife
habitats currently remaining in the American southwest.
The ``Seven B'', according to The Nature Conservancy's ecosystem
analysis of the lower San Pedro River, and the United States Bureau of
Land Management's San Pedro River Ecosystem Acquisition Plan is one of
the three highest remaining priority conservation sites along the
nearly 90 miles of the lower San Pedro River.
The riparian corridor through the ``Seven B'' is a very important
part of what is considered to be one of the most critical and
irreplaceable migration corridors in the western hemisphere for
neotropical birds. More than 380 species of birds have been documented
as occurring along or adjacent to the river.
Because this parcel contains such a lengthy stretch of the river,
because it contains what is probably the finest and largest remaining
mesquite bosque in Arizona, because of its superlative wildlife
habitat, and because of the property's potential role in the recovery
of several endangered species, including the southwestern willow
flycatcher, The Nature Conservancy is strongly supportive of federal
acquisition of this parcel for conservation purposes.
If there is anything, we can do to assist you with the management
or eventual protection of this important parcel, please do not hesitate
to contact us.
Sincerely,
Ken Wiley,
Director of Stewardship (AZ).
______
Statement of Don Steuter, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club--
Grand Canyon Chapter, on S. 2466
On behalf of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon (Arizona) Chapter, we
urge you to reject S. 2466, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and
Conservation Act of 2006. Our members enjoy--hike, bird watch, climb,
etc.--and are concerned about protecting the public lands that are a
subject of this proposed legislation.
This land swap bill will allow a foreign-owned mining company,
Resolution Copper Company (Rio Tinto--55% owner--headquartered in the
United Kingdom, and Broken Hill Properties--45% owner--headquartered in
Australia), which acquired the old Magma Mine near Superior, Arizona to
resume mining in the area, to also acquire Oak Flat Campground, located
in the Tonto National Forest.
Oak Flat campground was recognized by President Eisenhower as an
important area back in 1955, when he signed Public Land Order 1229
which specifically put this land off limits to future mining activity.
Oak Flat provides many recreational opportunities for Arizonans and
others from around the country. Recreational activities in the area
include hiking, camping, rock climbing, birding, bouldering and other
recreational activities. The Oak Flat area is the largest outdoor
climbing area in Arizona and home to the largest outdoor climbing
competition in the world. Oak Flat is also a key birding area. Four of
the bird species that have been sighted at Oak Flat are on the National
Audubon Society's watch list of declining species that are of national
conservation concern: Black-chinned sparrow, Costa's hummingbird,
Lewis's woodpecker, and Gray vireo. Because of the significance of this
area, its history of providing a respite for travelers and those
seeking relief from the hubbub of the urban environment, the Sierra
Club is strongly opposed to this land swap.
S. 2466 is unnecessary and at best, premature. If a land swap is
deemed necessary, it can be accommodated via an administrative action.
The benefit of this is that it will have a complete and thorough
environmental analysis, as required by the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), and will also include an examination of the
alternatives. This type of analysis can help the public better evaluate
whether they are getting a fair exchange and also evaluate the true
environmental impacts of such an exchange. Often a NEPA analysis can
identify a less environmentally harmful alternative as well. It is
clear that Resolution Copper Company (RCC) will benefit enormously from
this exchange as the company has indicated that this is a rich copper
vein. It is less clear that the public is getting a fair return on the
loss of Oak Flat.
A critical issue that is not addressed by this legislation is the
value of the lands that RCC will acquire. There is no real discussion
of the known and anticipated mineral values on the US Forest Service
(public) lands. RCC should not be allowed to hide behind the
``Confidential and Proprietary'' language that cloaks the ability to
evaluate whether or not there is any semblance of a fair exchange.
Again, this analysis and evaluation is something that can and should be
done via a NEPA process. How can the Congress, in good conscience,
approve a proposal when it cannot determine whether or not the public
is getting ripped off?
Furthermore, there is no hurry on this proposed exchange. Even if
RCC started moving forward with plans to mine today, it is unlikely
they would be ready to mine this copper for at least another five to
ten years. There is plenty of time to do a thorough analysis and look
at the alternatives, costs, etc.
Another reason to hold off or to reject this proposal is there is
no approved plan of operation for this proposed mine. Without that, it
is impossible to determine the impacts to the geology, the wildlife,
including at least one endangered species, or the water. Will it result
in dewatering Devil's Canyon and destroying its riparian habitat? These
are all issues which must be addressed prior to allowing this proposal
to move forward.
Apache Leap, an important cultural and historical land mark
overlooking the town of Superior, would become private land and be
within this proposed mine. While the bill requires that RCC place a
conservation easement on Apache Leap to prevent its destruction, it
also removes any liability for RCC if they actually do destroy Apache
Leap through their mining activity under Oak Flat. This is unacceptable
and irresponsible.
Cultural resources associated with the Apache are found at and near
Oak Flat and it is a traditional tribal use area. For this reason, the
San Carlos and White Mountain Apache Tribes are also opposing this
proposed land swap. Through a proper NEPA process, this would also be
examined and any negative impacts on the Apache properly evaluated and
mitigated. Less damaging alternatives for the tribes' cultural concerns
could be determined. There is no mention or attempt to address the loss
of cultural heritage in this legislation.
The bill gives RCC the responsibility for hiring the appraisers for
this land exchange. At a minimum, two independent appraisals should be
performed, not a special appraisal that is contracted by those who are
seeking the swap. It is unlikely that RCC's appraiser will deliver an
appraisal that is unsatisfactory to company.
While the bill attempts to mitigate the impacts on one group of
``stakeholders''--some of the climbers--it does not address the larger
loss to the general public. While this is a common tactic to peel away
opposition and get people to accept what has been presented as
``inevitable'', it does not result in good public policy. Whether it is
hikers, birders, the Apache tribes, or numerous other members of the
public, this bill does not even consider those issues.
Finally, it is pretty clear that President Eisenhower believed he
had protected Oak Flat when he issued the executive order. If an area
that has been protected from mining and other negative actions for over
50 years, can be given up so cavalierly, what is next? This sets a
terrible precedent. S. 2466 should be rejected and the impacts of such
a major action properly evaluated.
We would like to have our comments on S. 2466 be made part of the
official record. If you have any questions regarding this matter,
please do not hesitate to contact us at (602) 253-8633.
Thank you for considering or comments.
______
Statement of Roger Featherstone, Southwest Circuit Rider, EARTHWORKS,
on S. 2466
EARTHWORKS is a non-profit, non-partisan environmental organization
dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the
adverse impacts of mineral development. Our national office, based in
Washington D.C., provides support to citizens across the country and
around the world. Our field offices in Arizona and Montana assist
communities throughout the western United States concerned about the
impact of mineral development in their backyards.
EARTHWORKS supports responsible mining policies and practices and
recognizes that some mining companies seek to operate in a manner that
protects our environment.
We appreciate the opportunity to express our view in front of the
Subcommittee about S. 2466, the Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation
Act of 2006 (Land Exchange).
BACKGROUND
Resolution Copper Company (RCC)--a wholly foreign-owned subsidiary
of Rio Tinto and BHP, two of the largest mining companies in the
world--is potentially planning to develop a deep underground copper
mine. RCC seeks to acquire Oak Flat, Apache Leap, and surrounding
public lands for its own use through this land exchange bill. There are
many significant problems posed by this unusual bill. For example, if
passed, more than 3,000 acres of the Tonto National Forest will become
private property and forever off limits to recreationists and all those
who enjoy public lands. Privatization of this land would end public
access to some of the most spectacular outdoor recreation and wildlife
viewing areas in Arizona. If the mine is developed, this land would be
affected by massive surface subsidence, leaving a permanent scar on the
landscape among other lasting and ongoing damage.
The Oak Flat Campground was recognized by the Eisenhower
Administration as an important recreational resource in 1955, and
specifically placed off limits to future mining activity. This unique
area is a world-class natural resource for birding, hunting, hiking,
camping, rock climbing, bouldering, canyoneering, picnicking,
responsible OHV driving, and other recreational uses. Oak Flat receives
tens of thousands of visitors each year. On the eastern border of Oak
Flat is Devil's Canyon, and the waters of Queen Creek, one of the crown
jewels of Arizona's state trust lands, with some of the finest
remaining riparian habitat in the state.
Oak Flat, Apache Leap, Devil's Canyon, and the surrounding area
have long been an important cultural site for Western Apaches. The
Tonto National Forest has discovered at least a dozen archeological
sites in and around Oak Flat. Apaches continue to use the Oak Flat area
to gather acorns and pine nuts which are highly valued traditional and
ceremonial foods. Making Oak Flat private land would forever eliminate
those Apache traditional cultural and religious uses of that unique
area. Apaches Leap is an historical land known as the Apache's Masada.
It is hallowed grounds where many dozens of Apaches leaped to their
deaths when trapped by the US Army.
The bill contains no environmental studies or even the most basic
analyses and opportunity for public involvement afforded by the
National Environmental Policy Act. Furthermore, RCC has not yet filed a
mining plan and has not offered any information about (1) what will
become of Oak Flat, Apache Leap, and environs; (2) where the mountains
of mining tailings will ultimately reside; (3) where the enormous
amounts of water needed for mining will come from and be discharged;
(4) how endangered species (such as the Arizona hedgehog cactus,
echinocereus triglochidiatus arizonicus) will be preserved; and (5) how
necessary cultural resources will be protected. Importantly, the bill
makes no mention of the subsidence that could occur if RCC is allowed
to mine this area as it intends. Much has yet to still be dealt with in
terms of environmental considerations.
OUR VIEW
This bill is at best premature. Before we can decide on the merits
of any exchange, the public must review and debate a plan of operation
for an actual mine. If after full review of a plan of operations and
options, there is a decision made to move forward with a mine, only
then should it be determined if a land exchange is needed.
For this, and other reasons listed below, EARTHWORKS is opposed to
the land exchange in its current form. If after review of the mine plan
it is determined that a land exchange is needed in order for the
operation to move forward, EARTHWORKS may support a similar bill at
that time. It is possible for the bill to be re-crafted in a manner
that would be acceptable to us, but it would take substantial work to
accomplish.
RESPONSIBLE MINING
EARTHWORKS supports responsible mining. The following themes, while
not exclusive, are critical for the development of a responsible mine:
<bullet> Details of the project and potential impacts should be made
available to affected communities and area residents in an
appropriate language and format, and should be made accessible
to the public.
<bullet> The environmental review and decision-making processes
should be transparent and should cover all alternatives
(including a worst case scenario and analysis of off site
impacts).
<bullet> The public should have the right to comment on the adequacy
of the reclamation and closure plan, the adequacy of the
financial surety, and completion of reclamation activities
prior to release of the financial surety. Self bonding or
corporate guarantees should not be permitted.
<bullet> Companies should obtain the free, prior, and informed
consent of indigenous peoples before exploration begins and
prior to each subsequent phase of mining and post-mining
operations.
<bullet> Companies should conduct consultations that are culturally
appropriate, using mechanisms and institutions that are
recognized by the affected indigenous peoples and community--
women and men--in the area in which they wish to operate.
<bullet> Indigenous peoples and local communities should be provided
with sufficient resources to evaluate a project in order to
decide whether, and how, they would like it to proceed.
<bullet> Companies should not try to extract a community decision in
support of mining (or encourage governments to do so for them)
as this may divide communities and create dissent.
<bullet> The company should provide full disclosure of pertinent
information regarding a mining project to all groups within
potentially affected communities.
As I will explain below, the land exchange does not meet any of
these criteria for responsible mining.
The Land Exchange fails to make details of the project and
potential impacts available to affected communities and area residents
or the public in an appropriate language and format.
The company should provide full disclosure of pertinent information
regarding a mining project to all groups within potentially affected
communities.
ANALYSIS
The purported purpose of the land exchange is to facilitate the
construction of an underground mine by Resolution Copper Company (RCC).
But to date, the company has not provided full disclosure of any
information regarding a potential mining project. Even if the public
objects, the exchange is mandated by Congress and could not be undone.
The land exchange bill does little to ensure that the land trade
will fairly compensate the American public for the loss of Oak Flat and
Apache Leap. The bill requires that an appraisal be completed within
one year, yet the company itself will have no idea of the full value of
the minerals that are now held in the public trust. While the company
says in the press that the deposit they wish to mine is worth billions
of dollars, the land they wish to trade is only worth a few million.
The taxpayers deserve a full return on the minerals taken from public
lands.
There is no mandate that RCC build a mine if the exchange were to
be approved. If the company decides not to mine, Rio Tinto and BHP
would be able to enter into the real estate development business. If
this bill passes, the land will be private land, allowing mining
companies to sell the land for condominiums or golf courses. Rio Tinto
is currently planning a massive housing development on its mine land
outside of Salt Lake City that could house as many as 500,000-600,000
people. BHP is planning a large subdivision for 3,500 at its mine site
near San Manuel. There is nothing to stop RCC from using this bill as a
grab of public land under the guise of mining.
The Land Exchange Bill fails to require environmental review.
Therefore, there will be no decision-making process that discusses
impacts or alternatives.
ANALYSIS
If the Land Exchange becomes law, Arizona statutes would govern any
mine that may be built under Oak Flat / Apache Leap. Arizona state law
does not require a NEPA analysis of the project and alternatives.
The bill does not call for any alternatives analysis to look at the
suitability of acquisition of the lands involved in this land exchange.
An alternatives analysis would enable the public to fully understand
what it is giving up and what it may gain in the exchange.
There is no analysis in the bill of the impacts on the land traded
out of public ownership, including impacts from mining or other uses of
the land on adjacent lands.
There is plenty of time to undertake the full public review of any
possible mine under Oak Flat and Apache Leap. Full public review and
input would have shown that the area is critically important to Western
Apache and others--a point that is being glossed over in the current
rush to approve the exchange.
The public should have the right to comment on the adequacy of the
reclamation and closure plan, the adequacy of the financial surety, and
completion of reclamation activities prior to release of the financial
surety. Self-bonding or corporate guarantees should not be permitted.
ANALYSIS
There is no discussion about reclamation or closure of a mine in
the bill. If the land were privatized, Arizona state law would allow
the company itself to insure the cost of reclamation. This type of
self-guaranteed bond leaves the taxpayers vulnerable if the mining
company is to go bankrupt. We should learn from the example of the
bankruptcies of Asarco and other mining companies. Without cash up
front for reclamation, the taxpayer would be left responsible for
reclamation costs.
Companies should obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of
indigenous peoples before exploration begins and prior to each
subsequent phase of mining and post-mining operations.
Companies should conduct consultations that are culturally
appropriate, using mechanisms and institutions that are recognized by
the affected indigenous peoples and community women and men in the area
in which they wish to operate.
Indigenous peoples and community women and men should be provided
with sufficient resources to evaluate a project in order to decide
whether, and how, they would like it to proceed.
ANALYSIS
The bill fails on all of these principles. Neither the company nor
the law makers that have sponsored this bill have made any attempt to
meaningfully consult affected indigenous peoples. In fact, in spite of
being made aware of indigenous people who were available to testify in
front of this Committee, none were invited by the Committee to do so.
Companies should not try to extract a community decision in support
of mining (or encourage governments to do so for them) as this may
divide communities and create dissent.
ANALYSIS
RCC has gone to great lengths in this bill to attempt to
accommodate several interest groups. The bill bends over backwards to
provide incentives for rock climber support of the bill. The bill's
sponsors have offered parcels of land that would benefit only certain
conservation organizations. Yet, the bill locks other groups out of
areas traditionally used by the public. Not only would Native Americans
be locked out of traditional-use areas, but so would recreationists and
birdwatchers. Such a divide and conquer strategy of talking to and
appeasing only certain special interest groups is not the way to
conduct good public policy.
SUMMARY
There is no need for a land exchange in order for RCC to move
forward with plans to mine on public land. The 1872 Mining Law, which
governs hard rock mining on public land, makes it clear that RCC has
the ability to build a mine on public land. Of the 183 major hard rock
mines in the US that have opened since 1975, 137 have operated on
public land.
The real solution is to put this land exchange bill on hold and ask
RCC to submit a Plan of Operation to the U.S. Forest Service so that an
Environmental Impact Statement can be written to cover all the
alternatives in the project. RCC has stated that it will not be ready
to mine for at least 10 years, giving the Forest Service and the public
plenty of time to scrutinize the mine plan and come up with a solution
that benefits the mining company, recreationists, and the traditional-
use tribal interests.
Unfortunately, this land exchange bill leaves many affected parties
out of decision-making process. The bill takes the decision from the
many and puts it in the hands of a few, undercutting good decision-
making that would involve and benefit the public and surrounding
communities. Rather than working out the details behind closed doors,
RCC should allow for full disclosure and scrutiny. This will allow any
environmental issues--such as subsidence, water use and pollution
issues--to be dealt with early on in the process. It will also allow
RCC to fully consult with the tribes and other constituencies that will
be affected by the exchange. There seems to be only one reason this
bill is being rushed through the process--the companies know that the
only way to get what they want is to circumvent America's tried and
true public process by asking Congress to mandate a quick fix.
This land exchange bill would set a chilling precedent, allowing
for the revocation of similar land withdrawals such as parks,
recreation areas, and wildlife refuges. Public lands such as Oak Flat
that are set aside for recreation should remain protected for future
generations. This land exchange bill would sacrifice the interests of
Arizonans, and all Americans, to benefit a mining company. Twenty years
from now--when the mine ceases operation and the mining jobs once again
leave--what will be the fate of these landscapes? We strongly urge you
to protect these public lands for the public's future use and preserve
the unique opportunities for Arizonans that the Oak Flat area provides.
Recently the public has spoken loudly on several occasions about
keeping America's public lands public. This is just another land grab
under the guise of mining. Don't let this happen. There is time to do
this right.
______
Statement of Curt Bradley, Center for Biological Diversity,
Tucson, AZ, on S. 2466
We urge you to not approve S. 2466, the Southeast Arizona Land
Exchange and Conservation Act of 2006.
Resolution Copper Company (RCC) has desires to mine copper more
than 7,000 feet below Oak Flat Campground and Apache Leap just east of
the Town of Superior, Arizona. In order to avoid compliance with
federal environmental and cultural laws RCC is attempting to acquire
these public lands.
We are opposed to this land exchange for several reasons. First,
this area was specifically withdrawn from mining activity by President
Eisenhower in 1955. Since then the public has enjoyed the spectacular
Queen Creek Canyon and Apache Leap for their outstanding biological,
cultural, and recreational values. Queen Creek Canyon has perennial
pools of water that sustain life for many species of birds, plants, and
animals. This riparian area is significant in a state where over 90% of
the riparian areas have already been lost.
Second, we believe that mining activities in such a sensitive area
should be subject to our nation's environmental laws. By transferring
this area out of public domain, RCC is attempting to avoid public
oversight of their operations. The block fault mining operation that
RCC is proposing will consume vast amounts of water. Will the water
withdrawals affect nearby riparian areas and the species that depend on
them? Where will the contaminated waste water be dumped? Where will the
waste rock go? These questions won't be adequately answered if RCC is
allowed to avoid our environmental laws.
Third, the Apache Leap is a significant cultural resource. It is an
area of cliffs where the Apache warriors jumped to their deaths to
avoid capture by the U.S. Cavalry. I accompanied members of the San
Carlos Apache Tribe to the Leap and can attest to the many cultural
artifacts that are present there. This area is still in use by the
Apache for traditional uses and would be lost if it were transferred to
the private holdings of a mining company.
______
Arizona Native Plant Society,
Tucson, AZ, May 19, 2006.
Members of the U.S. Senate,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 2466, the Southeast Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act
of 2006
Dear Senators: The mission of the Arizona Native Plant Society
(AZNPS) is to promote knowledge, appreciation, conservation, and
restoration of Arizona's native plants and their habitats. The AZNPS
Conservation Committee is concerned that the proposed Southeast Arizona
Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2006 would impact the area in
general, but more specifically, the habitat for the Arizona hedgehog
cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus), a federally-listed endangered
species.
We are opposed to any legislative land exchange that would give
Resolution Copper control over Oak Flat Campground. A legislated land
exchange bypasses public participation in a process that is virtually
giving away public lands for destructive uses. We have not witnessed
true reclamation of lands used for mining and milling and have little
faith that Resolution Copper would or could accomplish this.
Oak Flat campground was recognized by President Eisenhower as an
important recreational resource as far back as 1955, when he signed
Public Land Order 1229 which specifically put this land off limits to
future mining activity. Oak Flat Campground is well-known as an area of
important bird habitat. On the eastern border of Oak Flat is Devils
Canyon, one of the crown jewels of our state trust lands with some of
the finest remaining riparian habitat in Arizona.
Please do not approve this destructive bill that would destroy an
important piece of America's ecological heritage.
Sincerely,
Carianne Sienna Funicelli,
Conservation Chair.
______
Statement of Lainie Levick, Tucson, AZ, on S. 2466
I am writing to urge the Subcommittee to NOT approve the
Southeastern Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act of 2005. This
act would give Resolution Copper Company (RCC), a foreign-owned mining
company, public lands that have been withdrawn from mining activity
since 1955, for the purpose of developing a mine without environmental
oversight.
The lands that RCC would receive are extremely important for
wildlife, cultural and recreational values. Furthermore, the area
contains rare perennial waters. In Arizona, over 90% of our riparian
areas have been destroyed due to development. A mine here would not
only devastate existing springs and streams, it would adversely impact
surrounding water resources. With our increasing population, water
quantity and quality issues are becoming major concerns. It is well
known that mines frequently cause surface and ground water
contamination.
Losing these resources to a foreign mining venture is simply not in
the best interests of the citizens of this country. It is especially
disturbing that, if RCC gets these lands, they can proceed with their
project without any opportunity for public input and very little, if
any, environmental impact analysis. This bill includes no provisions
for environmental or hydrologic studies to determine the potential
impact of the mining project. In addition, there are no standards that
would ensure that RCC would operate an environmentally responsible
project.
I urge you again to reject this land exchange bill. It would set a
terrible precedent to allow mining on lands that had previously been
withdrawn from mineral entry due to their important biological,
cultural and recreational values.
______
Resolution Endorsing the Locally Developed User Agreement Resolving
Recreational Use Conflicts Within the Hoover Wilderness Planning
Addition (West)
RESOLUTION NO. R05-060
WHEREAS, in the 1984 California Wilderness Act (the ``Act'')
Congress designated approximately 49,000 acres of land within the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest as the Hoover Wilderness Planning
Addition (the ``Planning Addition''); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Addition is located within the borders of the
County of Mono; and
WHEREAS, the Act directed the Forest Service to study the Planning
Addition and make a recommendation to Congress as to whether or not it
should be made a part of the National Wilderness System; and
WHEREAS, the Forest Service conducted an analysis of the Planning
Addition and made a recommendation to Congress as to the desired
management o the area. However, Congress has not yet taken action with
respect to that recommendation; and
WHEREAS, during the more than twenty years since that time,
controversy and conflict has existed as to the various recreation uses
which should take place within the Planning Addition. Those conflicts
are most intense in the winter when snowmobilers and cross-country
skiers vie for use of the area; and
WHEREAS, a group of local recreational users representing both the
snowmobile and cross country skiing perspectives met over a period of
more than five months this year, along with two members of this Board,
to try to develop a management recommendation for the Planning Addition
that would meet the needs of all future users without dwelling on past
conflict; and
WHEREAS, while difficult compromises had to be made on both sides,
the group succeeded in developing an agreement setting forth management
recommendations for the Planning Addition, which they have titled the
``Locally Developed User Agreement Resolving Recreational Use Conflicts
within the Hoover Wilderness Planning Addition (West) (the
``Agreement''); and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the time, effort, and energy which these
local users have invested in the process, and acknowledging the
difficulty of the task they set out to accomplish, the Board of
Supervisors desires to endorse the Agreement and recommend that it be
carried to the Congress by Mono County's Congressman Buck McKeon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Mono hereby endorses the ``Locally Developed User Agreement
Resolving Recreational Use Conflicts within the Hoover Wilderness
Planning Addition (West)'' and recommends that Congressman Buck McKeon,
in consultation with the drafters of the Agreement, take those steps
necessary to convert the agreement into Legislation to be presented to
the United States Congress.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 2nd day of August, 2005, by the
following vote, to wit
AYES: Supervisors Bauer, Cecil, Farnetti , Hazard & Hunt
NOES:
NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Byng Hunt,
Chair.
______
Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Inyo, State of
California, Regarding Proposed Legislation Expanding the Wilderness
System on the Inyo National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Lands
Managed by the Bishop Field Office in the Eastern Sierra Region
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-34
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors has considered public input,
both written and verbal, on various proposals to designate additional
Inyo National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Bishop Resource Area
lands as Wilderness; and
WHEREAS, the has been wide public discussion in Inyo County
regarding proposals to expand the Wilderness System in the Eastern
Sierra region; and
WHEREAS, the residents of Inyo County, through the participatory
and inclusive processes of the Inyo 2020 Forum, identified the
protection of agricultural lands and access to public lands as
priorities for action, as well as a desire to increase citizen
involvement to ensure that decision making at all levels of government
reflect an understanding of local residents and their concerns; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 Inyo County General Plan Update Goals and
Policies Report identifies policies to preserve and protect a variety
of recreation opportunities, appropriate access to resource managed
lands, current and future extraction of mineral resources and we of
public land for agricultural operations; as well as goals to provide
for a balanced approach of resource protection and recreation and
resource use of lands in Inyo County; and
WHEREAS, continued access to public lands and the maintenance of
land uses on public lands such as recreation, grazing, packing, and
mining are important components. of the social and economic health of
Inyo County and its communities; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors has a role in the process of
determining changes to public land designations, the nature of public
land access, or public land management prescriptions in Inyo County;
and
WHEREAS, this Board of Supervisors cannot support the April 26,
2002 Discussion Draft of the proposed ``California wild Heritage
Wilderness Act of 2002,'' or future iterations or revisions of this
proposed legislation, without adequate protection of the overall
environmental, social, and economic character of Inyo County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, the following concerns and
issues be addressed in considering the April 26, 2002 Discussion Draft
of the proposed ``California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act of 2002'' or
future iterations or revisions of this proposed legislation expanding
the Wilderness System in Inyo County:
1. Provide opportunities to obtain local consensus and support for
any changes to public land designations in bye County and address the
concerns of residents and public land users;
2. Ensure, through prior economic analysis, that Inyo County's
communities and businesses will not be adversely impacted by changes to
public land designations;
3. Protect existing recreation, grazing, packing, mining, research,
archeological and cultural uses on federal lands, including access;
4. Protect private property rights; including vested water rights,
and ass to private land inholdings and other lands that may be affected
by adjoining federal land acquisitions;
5. Ensure there is no net loss of privately owned property in Inyo
County as a result of expanded wilderness designations, and
6. Ensure there is no net loss in revenues to local governments
necessary to provide and maintain essential public facilities and
services,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board of Supervisors directs
staff to actively represent the County's issues and concerns throughout
the legislative process, particularly in the Congressional committee
mark-up, hearings and amendment processes,
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF MAY, 2002, BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: Supervisors Arcularius, Bear, Lent, Hambleton and
Dorame
NOES: --0--
ABSTAIN: --0--
ABSENT: --0--
Linda Arcularius,
Chairperson.
______
Resolution of the Board of Supervisors, County of Inyo, State of
California, Supporting the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River Designation
Proposal, and the Protection of Inyo County Road Issues and the
California Department of Transportation's Ability to Maintain State
Route 127
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-51
Whereas, the Amargosa River begins its journey In the desert
mountains bordering Death Valley National Park, where along its nearly
200-mile journey, the seasonal flow of the Amargosa is fed by
streamside springs as its winds its way above and below ground to
Badwater. California in Death Valley National Park, making a j-shaped
turn, ending just 50 miles from its origin near the communities of
Tecopa and Shoshone in Inyo County: and
Whereas, the Amargosa River canyon has been inhabited for over
10,000 years as evidenced by the artifacts still found along the river,
such as ``sleeping circles,'' mortar and pestles, fire stones,
petroglyph carvings, and other artifacts which are protected by federal
law but are often ruined or stolen by thoughtless as of vandalism and
theft; and
Whereas, the waters of the Amargosa (Spanish for bitter) sustain a
wide array of fish, wildlife, and streamside plants, including
threatened and endangered species, like the Southwest willow flycatcher
and the yellow-billed cuckoo, two sensitive fish species, a rich
variety of Mafia including reptiles, insects & mammals, as well as
diverse plant life which inhabit the river canyon; and
Whereas, for thousands of years, the Amargosa River has eroded
through layers of sedimentary and volcanic rock, as well as colorful
clay deposits creating remarkable cliffs and scenic desert landscape,
and where in nearby layers of volcanic ash fossilized foot prints of
mastodons, camels, and early horses have been identified, as well as
the discovery of bones of ancient elephants, which has led this area to
be called ``the Shoshone Zoo;'' and
Whereas, the locals have nicknamed this area of Inyo County the
``gateway to Death Valley'' since many of the 1.7 million visitors to
the National Park continue their travels into the Tecopa/Shoshone area
to enjoy the variety of recreational opportunities like hiking, biking,
exploring, birdwatching which are available as a result of the rich
diversity of the Amargosa Canyon; and
Whereas, the Bureau of Land Management has Identified a 26-mile
stretch of the Amargosa River between Shoshone and Tecopa eligible for
National Wild & Scenic River Status because of its outstanding scenic,
historic, cultural, geological, paleontological, ecological and
recreational values; and
Whereas, receiving ``wild and scenic'' designation will protect
this Malt extraordinary resources for human use now and for future
generations, it will enhance opportunities for tourism and sustainable
economic development, as well as being the first desert river in
California to achieve this level of protection; and
Whereas, it is imperative that State Route (SR) 127 be maintained
by California Department of Transportation (Caltran) in order to
provide safe reliable travel in that part of the County; and
Whereas, it is imperative that the Amargosa Wild & Scenic River
Proposal address Inyo County local road requirements, maintenance and
Improvement needs; and
Whereas, Inyo County fully supports Caltran's comments regarding
the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River Proposal Identifying their
requirements to ensure that SR 127 continues to provide a safe and
reliable transportation route for users of SR 127.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Inyo My supports the Bureau of Land Management's Amargosa
Wild and Scenic River Proposal to protect a 20-mile stretch of the
Amargosa River in the Shoshone/Tecopa area of Inyo County.
Now, therefore, be It furor resolved, that Inyo County supports the
efforts of the California Department of Transportation to maintain SR
127 as a safe and reliable route in the southeastern portion of Inyo
County.
Passed and Adopted by the Inyo County Board of Supervisors this
19th day of October, 2004, by the following vote of the Board of
Supervisors:
AYES: Supervisors Arcularius, Bear, Williams, Hambleton and
Dorame
NOES: --0--
ABSTAIN: --0--
ABSENT: --0--
Carroll M. Hambleton, Jr.,
Chairperson.
______
Trout Unlimited,
Public Lands Initiative,
Arlington, VA, May 24, 2006.
Hon. Larry Craig,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig and Senator Wyden: Please accept these written
comments for the May 24th Subcommittee hearing record regarding S.
2567, the Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic Enhancement Act.
Trout Unlimited (TU) is the nation's largest coldwater fisheries
conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration
of our nation's trout and salmon resources, and the watersheds that
sustain those resources. TU has more than 160,000 members, including
more than 12,000 in California, organized into 450 chapters in 38
states. Our members represent a small portion of the more than two
million licensed anglers in California. You may be aware that sport
fishing contributes more than $2 billion annually to the state's
economy.
TU supports the provisions in S. 2567 that would designate 40,000
acres of land as wilderness because such designation will help preserve
and protect the extraordinary hunting and fishing opportunities and
outdoor heritage of the Eastern Sierra Nevada.
In particular, S. 2567 will provide enhanced protection for three
rivers which are very important to anglers, the West Walker River, the
East Fork Carson River, and the Stanislaus River. These rivers rank
among the finest trout fisheries in California and our members place
very high value on the trout habitat and angling opportunities provided
by these three rivers.
The East Fork Carson, designated a State Heritage Trout Water,
hosts a small population of the rare Lahontan cutthroat trout. The
Lahontan cutthroat, currently listed as threatened under the Federal
Endangered Species Act, is native only to drainages in the eastern
Sierra. The East Fork Carson also is designated a State Wild Trout
Water, with a blue ribbon reach downstream of Markleeville where trophy
rainbows can be caught.
A portion of the West Walker River, from its headwaters to the town
of Walker, is currently designated as a federal Wild and Scenic River.
The lower reaches of the West Walker (before it exits California) are
known for their trophy-sized rainbow trout, and two State Wildlife
Areas are centered around the upper West Walker.
The Middle Fork of the Stanislaus River is one of the most fertile
fishing streams along the west slope of the Sierras, and is designated
a State Wild Trout Water. The Stanislaus' cold, clean water--one of the
principal conditions required for good salmonid habitat--flows from
lands either abutting or incorporated in the 640 acres of land proposed
for addition to the Emigrant Wilderness.
It is a well established scientific precept that protection of the
upper watershed is critical to the downstream ecological health of a
river. The headwaters of the West Walker, East Fork Carson, and Middle
Fork Stanislaus rivers originate in or flow through the 40,000 acres of
land that would be designated as wilderness if S. 2567 is enacted into
law.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Sam Davidson,
California Field Coordinator.
______
Statement of Peter Downing, Legislative Director, Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance, on S. 2788
These comments are submitted on behalf of the Southern Utah
Wilderness Alliance with regard to S. 2788, ``The Utah Recreational
Land Exchange Act of 2006.'' This legislation was introduced last year
as S. 1135 and more recently as S. 2788. We are pleased that the
Committee is taking up land exchange legislation that would enable
public acquisition of many spectacular Utah wild lands. We believe that
the recently reintroduced version of the legislation, S. 2788, contains
many significant conservation improvements from S. 1135. Our comments
highlight conservation and recreation aspects of the legislation. We
support the committee's effort to fully vet the other aspects of the
legislation, including the exchange methodology, valuation, and effect
on existing laws.
We have yet to see the final legislative map, but have worked
closely with the State of Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands
Administration (SITLA) and other stakeholders on preliminary maps. We
will carefully review the final map as it will profoundly affect which
parcels are traded to SITLA, acquired by BLM, protected from mineral
entry, protected from oil and gas development, and incorporated into
wilderness study areas. The map will also provide important information
about the timing and process for exchanging the parcels.
UTAH LAND EXCHANGES
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance and its over 13,000 members
across the nation are committed to ensuring that the public has the
opportunity to cherish and enjoy the rare and uncommon natural
landscapes found throughout the State of Utah for generations to come.
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, for the past twenty years, has
been deeply involved in an effort to designate deserving public lands
of the Colorado Plateau and West Desert regions of Utah as part of the
National Wilderness Preservation System. Helping the American public
appreciate and preserve Utah's remarkable natural landscape and natural
heritage is a critical part of our ongoing effort to achieve the goal
of lasting conservation for Utah's wild treasures.
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance supports the concept of BLM
acquiring State lands that are located within areas proposed for
wilderness designation. Today, the State owns about 3.5 million acres
of largely isolated square-mile blocks on BLM lands throughout Utah.
Many of these parcels are located within proposed wilderness units and
may be inconsistent with broader public conservation goals for that
landscape and SITLA's obligation to generate revenue for its public
school systems. In this case, land exchanges can benefit both the state
education and public land conservation.
Two land exchange bills in prior Congresses have helped maximize
conservation potential for certain BLM lands while helping satisfy
SITLA's economic and development objectives. In 1998, all 175,000 acres
of state lands in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument were
transferred from state to federal ownership in exchange for financial
compensation and less sensitive federal land parcels outside of the
newly designated monument.\1\ In 2000, Congress passed similar
legislation exchanging over 100,000 acres of state land from proposed
wilderness areas in Utah's West Desert.\2\ Both initiatives were strong
positive steps for wilderness protection and for Utah's schoolchildren.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L. 105-335
\2\ P.L. 106-301
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, the never-enacted San Rafael Swell land exchange
legislation, H.R. 4968 introduced in the 107th Congress, exposed
problems that can occur in land exchange legislation and the need for
carefully reviewing land exchange legislation.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION
The Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2005 would direct the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to enter into a land exchange with
SITLA. As we understand this legislation, roughly 40,000 acres of BLM-
owned land (and subsurface rights) would be exchanged for roughly
40,000 acres of SITLA-owned land (and subsurface rights).
The Act states that, ``it is the purpose of this act to further the
public interest by . . . acquiring State trust land with important
recreational, scenic, and conservation resources for permanent public
management and use.'' The public would relinquish ``Federal land that
has limited recreational and conservation resources.'' While the
legislation does not provide lasting wilderness protection, we think
that S. 2788 has the potential to achieve its stated purpose of
providing the public with lands important for their conservation,
scenic, and recreation values if the map and text are sufficiently
explicit about the fate of the BLM-acquired lands.
The findings in S. 2788 reflect our view that many regions in and
around the Colorado River corridor, the Books Cliffs, and Dinosaur
National Monument possess significant natural and conservation values.
These findings recognize wilderness study areas and citizens proposed
wilderness areas as significant considerations in making the land
exchange. The findings also acknowledge that development of State owned
land within these recreationally significant areas ``may be
incompatible with managing the area for recreational, natural, and
scenic resources.''
Rather than frustrate both the State's financial mandate and the
federal government's conservation efforts by maintaining the status
quo, S. 2788 allows for a mutually beneficial land exchange. We believe
the legislation's purpose can be realized in concert with the State's
goal of maximizing revenue from its State Trust Lands provided lands
designated for State acquisition are located in areas appropriate for
development.
STATE LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR CONVEYANCE TO BLM
The original legislation S. 1135 and the House companion H.R. 2069
reference a map for the land exchange dated February 9, 2005. S. 2788
does not use the February 9, 2005 map. The bill proposes several
undated maps that are not yet available. We appreciate that SUWA was
given an opportunity to have input on draft maps in recent months, but
we have not yet seen a final versions of those maps. We hope the final
maps can be made available as soon as possible. We would urge the
Committee to leave the hearing record open until the official
legislative maps have been released so stakeholders can amend their
testimony pending review of the maps.
We support the acquisition of state-owned lands as identified on
the original February 9, 2005 map referenced in S. 1135. In large part,
lands identified for acquisition by the BLM lie along the beautiful and
scenic Colorado River corridor northeast of the town of Moab, Utah.
Additional non-federal lands are located in the vicinity of Dinosaur
National Monument and the Book Cliffs proposed wilderness.
We believe that the lands and subsurface rights proposed for public
acquisition do a great deal to further conservation and recreation in
some very spectacular Utah landscapes.
The vast majority of state-owned lands identified in the
legislative map are located within areas proposed for wilderness under
the Utah Wilderness Coalition's wilderness proposal, introduced in this
Congress as America's Red Rock Wilderness Act (H.R. 1774/S. 882). The
legislation's findings recognize the significance of the ``multiple
wilderness study areas and proposed wilderness areas.'' The recreation
and conservation values of these lands are also evidenced by the fact
that many of the lands to be acquired by the BLM are located within
viewsheds of Arches National Park and Dinosaur National Monument.
BLM LANDS IDENTIFIED FOR CONVEYANCE TO THE STATE OF UTAH
The BLM lands identified for conveyance to the State do not
conflict with proposed wilderness areas of America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act. We appreciate that Senator Bennett's legislation does
not propose to convey to SITLA BLM lands that are proposed for
wilderness designation.
EXCHANGE OF LANDS
Since the ``Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act'' would be a
legislative rather than administratively directed land exchange,
Section 4 contains a variety of directives related to initiating the
exchange and timing of the exchange. We recognize that many millions of
acres of State-owned land are scattered throughout Utah and that SITLA
is seeking certainty in this exchange. That may be the general reason
behind including the provision in Subsection 4(a) ``Notwithstanding any
other provision of law . . . .'' We would urge the committee to examine
the practical effect of the language in Sec. 4(a) on this exchange.
We also realize that a timely exchange can benefit both
conservation goals and the State's development priorities. Phasing of
the parcels is generally described Section (4)(b)(2), however this
language needs to be fleshed out on the map. SUWA will review the map
for its phasing instructions and would urge the committee to do so as
well. Our hope is that valuable conservation parcels are appraised and
conveyed in a timely manner. We want to avoid a situation in which BLM
fails to acquire valuable conservation lands because the parties cannot
agree on an appraisal value.
EXCHANGE VALUATION, APPRAISALS, AND EQUALIZATION
Language has been added in Subsection 5(c) in response to
suggestion from conservation groups about improved transparency in the
equalization process and better public notice and public review.
The original equalization language of S. 1135 allowed only the
removal of BLM parcels from the exchange if the value of the selected
SITLA parcels was greater than the value of the selected federal
parcels. It did not grant BLM the authority to select additional
federal land to convey to BLM to equalize the value. S. 2788 has added
language that allows BLM to select additional lands to convey to SITLA
until the value of the federal land and SITLA land is equal. Section
5(c)(A) appears to require any BLM lands traded to SITLA meet the
following criteria: the federal lands are mutually selected by the
Secretary and SITLA; and the Secretary has identified the federal lands
for disposal in a resource management plan. It is unclear if both of
these criteria must be met, or if this language allows either criteria.
As such, we would urge the committee to review the intent and effect of
this provision.
We favorably note Section 5(c)(3) which adds better opportunities
for public review of the exchange if parcels are added or removed from
the exchange. We would recommend clarification to ensure that valuable
public conservation lands, such as those within America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act, are not conveyed out of public ownership as a result of
the equalization process.
STATUS AND MANAGEMENT OF LAND AFTER EXCHANGE
In addition to selecting lands that provide for public conservation
and recreation, SUWA supports management and administration for BLM-
acquired lands that help achieve this goal. We urge the committee to
approve language in the bill that would permanently withdraw BLM
acquired lands from oil and gas leasing. We also urge the committee to
work on language that would grant BLM acquired parcels of lands within
wilderness study areas the statutory wilderness study area protection
those lands deserve.
Mineral Entry Withdrawal
We support the improvements in Sec. 6(a)(2)(A) and Sec. 6(a)(2)(B)
that help support the conservation and recreation objectives of the
legislation.
Sec. 6(a)(2)(A) withdraws all federally acquired land from oil and
gas leasing and development for the later of two years or the
completion of the Moab Field Office resource management plan. This is a
reasonable short term approach to ensure that lands newly acquired by
the BLM are not immediately turned over for oil and gas leasing, but it
would not provide lasting protection for the many valuable conservation
lands BLM would acquire.
We are pleased that a more lasting form of protection is provided
in Sec. 6(a)(2)(B) for certain lands identified on the legislative map.
This subsection seeks to permanently withdraw parcels identified on the
legislation map from all forms of mineral entry. We have not yet seen
the legislative map, so it is not possible to know what affect this
language will have on lands proposed for BLM acquisition. We hope the
final map will acknowledge the conservation and recreation benefits of
protecting the proposed wilderness lands along the Colorado River,
Arches National Park, Dinosaur National Monument, and the Castle Valley
water shed. We urge the committee to review this language to determine
if it achieves the desired goal of preserving these lands for
conservation.
Achieving this protection is an important conservation priority as
many conservation lands are under intense pressure from oil and gas
leasing. During the past several years BLM has repeatedly proposed to
lease recreationally and naturally significant wilderness quality lands
for oil and gas exploration and development. On February 18, 2004, for
example, the BLM offered 23 parcels located in close proximity to
Dinosaur National Monument for oil and gas leasing. Four of those
parcels were located within Diamond Mountain--an area originally
proposed for BLM acquisition in the February 2005 map--and two were
located within Moonshine Draw proposed wilderness area. Five proposed
lease parcels actually touched the boundary of Dinosaur National
Monument. The BLM failed to analyze the potential site-specific impacts
of leasing and development of these parcels prior to offering the
parcels for oil and gas leasing. These parcels were protested by SUWA
and other conservation organization, and BLM denied these protests on
September 30, 2005.
In another example, in September 2004, the BLM proposed to lease
lands bordering the lower segment of the Green River, a waterway
renowned for back country river running opportunities. Further, in May
2005 the BLM proposed to lease public lands outside ``Parowan Gap''--a
literal treasure trove of Native American rock art--in southwest Utah.
BLM denied a protest filed by SUWA and other conservation organizations
for both the September 2004 and May 2005 lease sales. In August 2005,
the BLM proposed to lease 3,200 acres of lands within eyeshot of
Canyonlands National Park.
The BLM has shown that it is willing to lease areas that are rich
in conservation and recreational values. Given that S. 2788 proposes
the exchange to further public conservation and recreation priorities,
we urge the Committee to ensure this goal is met by ensuring the
legislative map adequately protects conservation lands from new oil and
gas leasing. SUWA has enclosed letters from concerned citizens of Moab
urging that the lands in question be withdrawn from oil and gas
leasing.
The withdrawal of the BLM proposed acquired parcels would be
consistent with earlier actions taken by the Department of the Interior
to preserve BLM lands along the Colorado River for conservation and
recreation. On September 11, 2004, Interior Secretary Norton signed an
order protecting roughly 112,000 acres of scenic public land located
along the Colorado, the Dolores, and Green Rivers from new hard rock
mining claims. Many of the SITLA lands contemplated for BLM acquisition
in S. 2788 are located in the area affected by Secretary Norton's
moratorium on new hard rock mining claims. Protecting the BLM proposed
acquired parcels from future oil and gas leasing would add to the
Department's earlier conservation order.
Wilderness Study Area Protection
From the February 2005 map it appears that 16 parcels are either in
or directly adjacent to existing wilderness study areas. S. 2788 states
that the administration of lands acquired by BLM, ``shall become part
of, and be managed as part of, the Federal administrative unit or area
in which the land is located.'' \3\ This language does not give
sufficient direction to the BLM to ensure that such parcels will be
incorporated into the wilderness study area in which they belong.
Therefore, we urge the committee to work out additional language that
would more explicitly direct BLM to designate parcels in and directly
adjacent to WSAs as wilderness study areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Sec. 6(a)(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public interest Provision
Section 6(e) contains language stating that the land exchange
``shall be considered to be in the public interest under section 206(a)
of FLPMA. It is unclear that the effect of this language would be on
this exchange, the future administration of the lands involved in the
exchange, or future land exchanges in Utah. Therefore, we would urge
the committee to review this language.
VALUATION
SUWA does not have special expertise on valuation methodology. Sec.
5 sets forth a lengthy valuation and exchange process. We urge the
Committee to review this language and consult with the Department of
the Interior to fully vet these provisions.
CONCLUSION
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance is hopeful that we will be
able to support the legislation when all components of the bill are
available. We have yet to see the final map and that is a piece of
crucial information that we must carefully review. We will be paying
particular attention to how well the map protects conservation and
recreation lands from oil, gas, and mineral development. Overall, we
feel that this exchange is a noteworthy example of how diverse
stakeholders can work constructively together. SITLA, in particular,
has worked to ensure that all stakeholders are given a fair chance to
be involved. As a result, the legislation before the committee reflects
months if not years of hard work by many different stakeholders. We
look forward to making progress on this important land exchange bill.
______
Statement of Janine Blaeloch, Director, Western Lands Project,
on S. 2788 and S. 2466
The Western Lands Project is a non-profit, membership organization
founded in 1997 to conduct research, outreach, and advocacy for reform
in federal land exchange policy. We also scrutinize a broad range of
projects that propose to sell, give away, or relinquish public control
of public lands. We have submitted testimony to this committee and
corresponded with individual members many times regarding congressional
land exchange and conveyance proposals.
Today we submit our concerns regarding both S. 2788 and S. 2466.
S. 2788, UTAH RECREATIONAL LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2006
Our organization has reviewed 3 previous legislative proposals for
large land exchanges between the BLM and Utah School and Institutional
Trust Lands Administration (SITLA). These were the Utah Schools
Exchange of 1998, the West Desert trade of 2000, and the doomed
Federal-Utah State Trust Lands Consolidation Act (San Rafael Swell
trade) of 2002. We raised substantial concerns about these
transactions, including problems with the land appraisal methodologies
used; site-specific problems with lands that would be relinquished by
the United States; and circumvention of the Federal Land Policy &
Management Act (FLPMA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
We were deeply involved in scrutinizing the 2002 San Rafael Swell
land exchange, which ultimately failed due to manipulations in the
appraisals that would have cost federal taxpayers an estimated $117
million. The uproar over that project led to an audit by the Interior
Inspector General; a scathing report on Interior appraisal practices by
the Appraisal Foundation; and a complete re-structuring of Interior's
appraisal division. There was also a steady stream of bad press for all
involved.
The present proposal essentially came out of the ashes of the San
Rafael debacle, so it is disappointing to note that so few lessons have
carried over from that experience. The substantive bill language in S.
2788 begins in Section 4 with a full waiver of any other law that might
apply to this land exchange--certainly not an auspicious beginning.
Relevant laws that come to mind in this case would be the Federal Land
Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic
Preservation Act.
FLPMA is intended to protect the public by ensuring equal value and
mandating a public interest determination for any land trade. Equally
importantly, FLPMA provides a deliberative resource management planning
(RMP) process by which public lands ``suitable for disposal'' are
identified. Land exchange proposals such as this one that do not adhere
to the RMP may trade away lands that are not at all suitable for
disposal.
The NEPA process mandates analysis and disclosure of environmental
impacts, helping both the public and decision-makers understand what is
being lost and gained in a land exchange, and how it relates to other
projects. The error of bypassing this analysis has been proven many
times. The San Rafael Swell bill stated outright that no sensitive
resources would be traded out of public hands, and without NEPA
analysis, one had to simply take the sponsors' word. However, local BLM
staff released an internal analysis of the public parcels that showed
the public would in fact be losing significant T&E species habitat,
wetlands, and paleontological and cultural resources.
NEPA also provides for the analysis of alternatives--an element
that is particularly well-suited to land exchanges, because it has the
potential to shape an exchange proposal into something that really
works for both parties. In addition, the public involvement process
under NEPA is a more predictable and accessible than that which is
provided through the legislative process.
The Western Lands Project submitted testimony against the House
version (HR 2069) of the present bill, noting that HR 2069 replicated
virtually every major flaw in the San Rafael proposal. We note that
some of the egregious provisions in HR 2069 have been excluded from S.
2788, including a special appraisal methodology allowing the use of
conservation sales/purchases as comparable sales for the appraisals.
That provision was in direct conflict with the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisition (UASFLA) and mimicked one of the
worst elements of the corrupt San Rafael Swell deal.
Unfortunately, two unacceptable appraisal-related provisions have
been carried over into SR 2788 in Section 5. One calls for the joint
selection of a third-party appraiser, which flies in the face of the
hard-won appraisal reforms coming out of the San Rafael proposal.
Appraisals should be performed by the Appraisal Services Directorate--
the very entity that was created post-San Rafael both to shield
Interior Department appraisers from political pressure and to ensure
adherence to proper standards. To circumvent that structure and the
reform it represents is at least counterintuitive and at most a
betrayal of the public interest.
The second harmful appraisal-related provision has to do with the
mineral valuation of unleased federal land and the disposition of
royalties. This language is not clear, but it appears to preemptively
erase mineral value on federal land traded to SITLA that is likely to
yield SITLA a high return from minerals in the future. In any case,
this language does not belong in the bill because it amends an
appraisal process that is already outlined in UASFLA.
The second-to-last provision in the bill is a statement that the
land exchange ``shall be considered to be in the public interest,'' a
cavalier declaration that can only stem from utter denial of the
problems attendant to past land deals between the U.S. and SITLA.
In light of past experience with BLM-SITLA land exchange proposals,
we believe that the BLM should exchange land with SITLA only through
the administrative (agency) process and under FLPMA and NEPA.
Regrettably, SITLA has proven time and again that it will squeeze every
advantage it can from these deals, with custom-designed provisions and
constant pressure to expedite. SITLA would no doubt say that is its job
for the people of Utah, but if the agency wants to make a deal with the
American public it should learn to follow the rules rather than make up
its own.
s. 2466. southeast arizona land exchange and conservation act of 2006
A primary problem with S. 2466 is that there does not seem to be
any public benefit driving the exchanges or conveyances in the bill.
The purpose of the bill is to give Resolution Copper possession of a
prized piece of public land--everything else in the bill is apparently
designed to try to make that action seem less harmful.
It is particularly alarming that the land Resolution Copper covets
is currently protected from mining under an Executive Order issued 50
years ago that would be nullified with the signing of this bill--
although one would not know that from the bill, because it does not
mention it. As too often happens with legislated land exchanges and
conveyances, yet another piece of public land ``permanently'' protected
is being put on the block because a private interest has use for it.
We understand that some interest groups agreed to suspend their
opposition to the trade of Oak Flat or even come out in support of this
legislation in exchange for public acquisition of parcels that met
their specific interests. It should be noted that a proposal that
serves a small cadre of ``stakeholders'' is not necessarily one that
serves the public at large, particularly considering that the stealth
removal of the protective Executive Order could have implications for
public lands everywhere.
The bill contains numerous special provisions that are apparently
intended to demonstrate Resolution Copper's public-spiritedness--but
which actually leave the impression that the company stands to make so
much money on mineral extraction at the Oak Flats that it can afford to
be magnanimous. These provisions include appraisal changes that
eliminate the discount in value that would normally occur on the Forest
Service land as a result of unpatented mining claims on the land and
the proposed conservation easement.
The bill also has Resolution paying virtually all of the costs. On
one hand (and all other issues aside), this is only fair, since the
public should not be paying for land deals that are designed to benefit
a private party. On the other hand, Resolution having equal say in
selection of an appraiser and also paying for the appraiser does not
bode well for an impartial valuation.
The bill also contains sales of federal land to the Town of
Superior, none of which can be said to serve any broader public
interest. One is a 30-acre cemetery conveyance, but it is not clear
whether the parcel is entirely occupied by a cemetery or other future
uses might be anticipated on some of the land.
The second sale is of a reversionary interest covering land at the
Superior airport. The airport land was originally conveyed to Pinal
County by the Forest Service under an old statute aimed exclusively at
providing land for community airports. (Pinal later conveyed the land
to Superior). Now, the reversionary clause--a mechanism designed to
protect the public interest--would be nullified, giving the town free
rein to sell or develop the land for private economic development. The
town would also be allowed to purchase up to 181 additional acres of
federal land near the airport.
None of this would be done through the NEPA/FLPMA process. Rather
than having a full analysis of what the public would win or lose in the
bill, we are presented with a fait accompli consisting of what
Resolution and a few groups have shaken hands on.
Because the impetus behind this bill is not the public interest but
Resolution Copper's interest, it is doubly important that we have the
benefit of the analysis, disclosure, and deliberation these statutes
provide.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
______
Moab, UT, September 26, 2005.
Chairman and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, House Resources Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Subject: Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2005--H.R. 2069
Greetings from Moab, Utah: I am resident of Moab, Utah and would
like to urge you to approve the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of
2005. The land near Moab and the Colorado River, which is to be
acquired, is stunningly beautiful and each section is uniquely
different. The proposed acquisition contains natural arches (``Little
Rainbow Bridge'' aka Corona is just one example), towering spires
(Fisher Towers), and permanent free-flowing creeks (Mill Creek) as well
as beautiful red rock vistages.
I have been a trail maintenance volunteer for the BLM Moab Field
Office for the past 5 years, and have worked trails in or near at least
3 of the proposed land acquisition areas thus I am familiar with the
land, its value to the community and to all who come to Moab and to
enjoy it.
Since the land is to be acquired under the title of
``Recreational'', it seems to me that any mineral rights should be
withdrawn forever. The land is priceless if it is maintained for
recreation. If the trade goes forward without protection, and then the
land is leased for mineral extraction, the entire purpose of the land
exchange is lost.
Thanking you in advance for protecting this land for us and for
future generations.
Sincerely,
Virginia Carlson.
______
Moab, UT, September 26, 2005.
Chairman and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, House Resources Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman and Ranking Members: As a long-time resident of Moab,
Utah, I have long been involved in public lands issues. Moab is the
nearest town to many of the lands being acquired in the Colorado River
land exchange bill. I would like to express my strong support for the
bill, however, I am concerned that the current language does not
actually assure conservation of the lands acquired by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM).
BLM has been aggressively leasing public lands in Utah for energy
development, especially around Moab and Dinosaur National Monument. The
current bill does nothing to protect the acquired lands from being
nominated and leased for drilling. Such drilling activities would make
no sense for the parcels being acquired by BLM in this exchange, given
the nature of the parcels themselves and the surrounding lands, many of
which are already in Wilderness Study Areas or lands inventoried by BLM
as possessing wilderness characteristics. Additional assurances are
needed to protect publicly acquired land from oil and gas drilling and
mining.
Please include provisions In the bill that assure lands acquired
under the legislation for public conservation and recreation purposes
be protected from oil, gas, and mineral development.
Sincerely,
Wayne Hoskisson.