**Statement of**

**Chad Calvert**

**Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary**

**Land and Minerals Management**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**H.R. 3603, Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act**

**September 27, 2006**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3603, the Central Idaho
Economic Development and Recreation Act (CIEDRA) as passed by the House
of Representatives on July 24. We support the goals of the bill and the
collaborative approach taken by Congressman Simpson in crafting it.
While generally supportive of the legislation, as discussed in more
detail below the Administration continues to oppose the provisions
relating to the transfer of Federal lands without compensation, the
buyout of patented mining claims, and the acquisition of unpatented
mining claims.

We recognize that H.R. 3603 is the result of a lengthy and very thorough
collaborative process led by Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho.
Congressman Simpson and his staff have spent a substantial amount of
time and energy on this legislation. We look forward to continuing to
work with the Congressman and the Committee to address our concerns with
the bill.

My comments today will only address issues of interest to the DOI and
the BLM. We defer to the Department of Agriculture and the Forest
Service on those matters that lie strictly within their jurisdiction.

We would also note that the BLM has been working with Congressman
Simpson on accurate maps for Sections 102, 104, 105 and 106 as well as
for the Jerry Peak Wilderness described in section 201(a)(3). Therefore
our comments today will reflect the information on those maps dated
September 13, 2006 for sections 102, 104, 105 and 106 and dated August
30, 2006 for Jerry Peak Wilderness.

In addition to the specific items we outline below, we would like the
opportunity to work on a number of minor technical issues including
timeframes and resolution of any mapping inconsistencies.

[Title I---Land Transfers and Recreation Promotion]{.underline}

Title I of the legislation proposes a number of land transfers by the
BLM to local governments, including Blaine County, the cities of
Clayton, Mackay, and Challis, as well as to the State of Idaho. In
addition, this title authorizes the BLM to undertake additional trail
construction and maintenance and campground improvements as well as to
extend outfitter and guide permits. Finally Title I proposes a series of
land exchanges with the State of Idaho.

The land conveyances to local communities in sections 102, 104, 105, and
106 all require conveyance at no cost to the benefiting entity while
requiring that the Secretary of the Interior bear the cost of the
survey; other costs related to the transfer are not addressed. The
legislation does not clarify the purposes for these transfers. If the
transfers are for public purposes, we ask the Congress to consider
whether these transfers should be done under the auspices of, or at
least consistent with, the Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP). If
the transfers are intended for subsequent sale or development for
nongovernmental purposes, we would instead recommend that the bill
direct the BLM to sell the identified lands at auction or through a
modified competitive sale to local governments for fair market value.

The various transfers outlined in sections 102, 104, 105, and 106
comprise 21 parcels totaling approximately 4,500 acres. It should be
noted that we have neither undertaken surveys of these lands, nor can
provide estimates of values without substantial additional work. Some of
the lands have been identified for disposal by the BLM through its land
use planning process, and others have not. Most of the parcels have
current uses, including grazing, recreation, and hunting. In addition,
there are a number of encumbrances, including roads, power lines, and
pipelines. The BLM could support disposal of some of these parcels if
they were transferred consistent with the suggestions we have outlined.

In addition, all costs related to the transfers, including surveys,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and related
clearances should be borne by the benefiting entity, not by the Federal
government. Furthermore, it should be made clear that these transfers
are subject to valid existing rights.

Section 107 directs the transfer, without consideration, of 960 acres of
public land near Boise to the State of Idaho for a motorized recreation
park to be administered by the State. At this time, the 960 acres to be
transferred have not been specifically identified. Until we know which
acres are proposed for transfer, we cannot fully analyze any possible
conflicts, or identify current uses or encumbrances. As noted above, all
costs associated with this transfer should be borne by the benefiting
entity. Furthermore, we note that the various conditions of the transfer
should be included as deed restrictions to provide for the currently
authorized uses and to avoid the necessity of the Federal government
retaining the responsibility for monitoring.

Sections 109 and 110 authorize \$550,000 for the construction and
maintenance of bike and snowmobile trails in Idaho by the Secretaries of
Agriculture and the Interior. While we support bike trails and outdoor
recreation, we believe these are expenses more appropriately borne by
State and local governments, especially when they are not on Federal
lands.

Section 111 provides for a 10-year extension of permits for each guide
or outfitter currently operating within the areas designated by the bill
as wilderness or within the Boulder-White Cloud Management Area
established by the bill. The BLM currently allows for the granting of
10-year permits. We would prefer to renew or issue new permits in
accordance with established policies and the existing public process.

Section 114 calls for the expansion and improvement of the Herd Lake
Campground facilities and authorizes \$500,000 for this purpose.
Currently, that campground consists of a single campsite. We note that
this is simply an authorization and this project would need to compete
with other similar projects, and the needs of the public lands in
general, for actual funding.

Finally, section 115 authorizes land exchanges between the State of
Idaho and the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture in order to
eliminate State inholdings within the wilderness areas designated by the
bill and in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. It is our
understanding that neither the map of the State inholdings nor the lands
proposed for exchange by the Federal government have been finalized.
Until that information is available we are unable to comment on this
section of the bill.

[Title II---Central Idaho Wilderness]{.underline}

The bill would establish three wilderness areas, the Ernest
Hemingway-Boulder Wilderness, White Clouds Wilderness, and Jerry Peak
Wilderness. Only the Jerry Peak Wilderness includes lands managed by the
BLM. Under the bill, Jerry Peak Wilderness would total approximately
131,700 acres including approximately 31,700 acres of BLM-managed lands.
This wilderness area would include portions of the Jerry Peak Wilderness
Study Area (WSA), the Jerry Peak West WSA, and the Boulder Creek WSA.
The portions of those WSAs not designated as wilderness as well as the
Corral Horse Basin WSA (approximately 79,384 acres) are released under
the legislation from WSA status and are incorporated into the
Boulder-White Cloud Management Area established by Title III of the
bill. We support the designation of this Wilderness Area and believe
that the BLM lands included could be managed as wilderness. We would
like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the committee on minor
boundary modifications to ensure manageability. Additionally, we would
like to work on standardizing the management language to be consistent
with other wilderness designations. By making minor adjustments to the
language of the bill, we believe we can both protect the wilderness
character and allow important uses in a manner consistent with
wilderness management.

We oppose section 203 of this title, which provides for the purchase of
all patented mining claims within the designated wilderness at \$20,000
a claim. Any proposal to buy out private inholdings or property
interests should be based on the appraised fair market value and subject
to the availability of funds.

[Title III---Boulder White Cloud Management Area]{.underline}

Title III of the bill creates a new and unique entity, the Boulder-White
Clouds Management Area. Both Forest Service lands and BLM-managed lands
released from WSA status would be managed for multiple use, including
recreation, grazing, conservation, and resource protection. We support
the establishment of this area. Title III includes an authorization of
appropriations for this title totaling nearly \$7 million. We are
concerned that the local community may have heightened expectations that
the BLM may not be able to fulfill. Congress and the local community
must be aware that competing budget priorities may prevent full funding
of these initiatives. In addition, we would like to work with the
sponsor and committee to ensure that the language on trails is workable
and consistent with both BLM regulations and practicalities on the
ground.

A new subsection 302(b) has been added to the legislation since we
testified during House Resources consideration in October of 2005. This
subsection requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to
accept charitable contributions of unpatented mining claims within the
boundary of the Boulder-White Management Area. As we understand it, the
donor of that claim would then be allowed a tax deduction for that
contribution. Furthermore, the bill appears to allow a business entity
to value itself for donation purposes if the assets of that business are
substantially based upon the ownership of the mining claim. We oppose
these provisions, because it is inappropriate to attribute value to
claims without a demonstration of validity under the mining laws, and
the Department defers to the Department of Treasury regarding additional
information on the tax implications of the charitable donation element
of this section. There are currently over 1300 unpatented mining claims
within the proposed Boulder-White Cloud Management Area.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

We appreciate the hard work and collaborative spirit that has brought
the bill to this point and we applaud Congressman Simpson for his
leadership and dedication. We would be happy to work with the sponsor
and the Committee to further improve the bill to a point where the
Administration could fully support it.

**Statement of**

**Chad Calvert**

**Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary**

**Land and Minerals Management**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**S. 3000, the Copper Valley Native Allotment Resolution Act**

**September 27, 2006**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify on

S. 3000, the "Copper Valley Native Allotment Resolution Act of 2006." As
discussed in more detail below, the Department supports the goals of S.
3000, which would grant rights-of-way for electric transmission lines
over certain Alaska Native allotments.

**Background**

The issues related to this bill are described in detail in a September
2004 Government Accountability Report titled "Alaska Native Allotments:
Conflicts with Utility Rights-of-Way Have Not Been Resolved Through
Existing Remedies" (GAO-04-923). As noted in the GAO Report, the
Department and the State of Alaska have granted rights-of-way for a
variety of uses, including electrical transmission lines, and some of
these rights-of-way cross Alaska Native allotments, giving rise to
conflicts between Alaska Natives and holders of rights-of-way. One such
holder is Copper Valley, a rural nonprofit electric cooperative which
provides electricity to about 4,000 members in Alaska\'s Valdez and
Copper River Basin areas. According to the Report, as early as 1958,
Copper Valley obtained rights-of-way permits from Interior, and later
from the State of Alaska, to construct and maintain electric lines.
However, in some instances it has been determined (either by the
Department or the Alaska Realty Consortium, which provides realty
services for over 160 Native allotments in south-central Alaska) that
Copper Valley is trespassing or allegedly trespassing across Alaska
Native allotments.

Since the late 1980s, the Department has applied the "relation back"
doctrine when addressing disputes between Alaska Native allotments and
rights-of-way holders. Under that doctrine, the rights of Alaska Native
allottees relate back to when each first started using the land, not
when the allotment was filed or granted. Prior to that time, Alaska
Native allotments generally were subject to rights-of-way existing at
the time the allotment was approved. Federal courts have dismissed legal
challenges to Interior\'s use of the relation back doctrine because of
sovereign immunity.

**Discussion**

The GAO identified 14 specific allotments where Copper Valley's
rights-of-way conflict with Native Allottee ownership. S. 3000 would
resolve the dispute by granting to Copper Valley a right-of-way over the
specific allotments listed in the bill; the bill would also ratify any
existing right-of-way within a federally-granted highway easement
granted by the State to Copper Valley before the date of enactment. In
exchange for the rights-of-way granted across each of the properties,
owners of the listed allotments would each be compensated based on the
results of an appraisal conforming with the Uniform Appraisal Standards
for Federal Land Acquisitions, plus interest, from the date of first
entry of Copper Valley on the allotment. We have not yet conducted any
appraisals, but we do not expect these costs to be significant.
Compensation would be paid from the Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. 1304).

As noted above, the Department supports the resolution of this matter.
With this in mind, however, we do have some concerns with the bill.
Specifically, we recommend that section 3(c)(1) be deleted. The
provision addresses a property dispute between the State and the federal
government based on highway easements, and has nothing to do with
conflicts between Copper Valley and owners of Alaska Native allotments.
In fact, this section would reverse a longstanding Departmental
interpretation upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court (See *United States v.
Gates of the Mountains Lakeshore Homes, Inc.*, 732 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir.
1985)), and could be cited by the State as a precedent in future
disputes with the BLM. In addition, we have concerns about whether this
is an appropriate use of the Judgment Fund. We also believe that section
3(c)(1) is unnecessary, as section 3(a) provides the ratification being
sought by Copper Valley. Finally, we note that there are alternative
methods for calculating the value of the property interest granted to
Copper Valley that could result in different amounts of compensation
being awarded to allotment owners. We think this is an important issue
and one that should be addressed. We look forward to working with you on
this and other technical issues.

**Conclusion**

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony.
I will be pleased to answer any questions you and other Members of the
Committee may have.

**Statement of**

**Chad Calvert**

**Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary**

**Land and Minerals Management**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**S. 3599, Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Establishment Act**

**September 27, 2006**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 3599, the
Prehistoric Trackways National Monument Establishment Act. We are
excited about the discovery of these important prehistoric trackways on
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed land in New Mexico and agree
with Senator Bingaman that we must permanently protect these exceptional
resources.

**[Background]{.underline}**

The Paleozoic trackways site is located on public land managed by the
BLM in the Robledo Mountains in south-central New Mexico. The area is
located within a sequence of sedimentary rocks representing a transition
zone between marine and continental environments that existed during the
early Permian period (280 million years ago). During times of higher sea
level, limestone formed. The limestones contain a variety of
invertebrate fossils. As the sea retreated, a tidal flat environment
developed and sand, silt and clay dominated deposition. The sandy
siltstones contain a variety of sedimentary structures, including
raindrop impressions, mudcracks, and ripple laminations. These sandy
siltstones are known to contain fossil tracks of land dwelling
vertebrates which roamed New Mexico before the age of the dinosaurs.

In 1987, Las Cruces resident Jerry MacDonald discovered a major
Paleozoic trackways area. Over the next few years, other significant
sites were also discovered by MacDonald. The resources that have been
found in the Robledos are considered by scientists who have examined
them to be the largest, and scientifically, the most important Paleozoic
fossil footprint discovery ever made in the western United States and
possibly the world. The trackways are extremely diverse and varied, and
appear to represent a very broad spectrum of ancient animal life;
including the 11 foot long, fin-backed Dimetrodon and the big headed
amphibian Batrachichnus, as well as other reptiles, amphibians, insects
and other invertebrates. They also represent not just an occasional
footprint, but entire trackways where different animals had left a
record of activity. This is considered the best locality in the world
for early Permian tetrapod trackways.

In 1990, the Congress passed legislation sponsored by Senator Bingaman
along with Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen which withdrew 736
acres around the trackway site and called for a study of the area. In
1993, the BLM using its resource management planning process designated
720 acres as a Research Natural Area (RNA). The study was completed in
1994 and gave a range of alternatives for protection, most of which were
implemented, including an agreement BLM initiated with the New Mexico
Museum of Natural History and Science to ensure professional curation of
fossils. The Museum holds the largest collection of these important
fossils to allow for scientific study and interpretation from around the
world. In fact, the public is now able to access the collection on the
Museum's website. As part of the BLM's ongoing planning process,
additional protections for the area are being considered.

Jerry MacDonald's excavation and collection of material from the
trackways site is now preserved in the New Mexico Museum of Natural
History and Science, the Carnegie Museum, the Smithsonian, the Los
Angeles County Museum, and the City of Las Cruces Natural History
Museum.

**[S. 3599]{.underline}**

The legislation before the Committee today would designate 5,367 acres
of public land in Doña Ana County as the Prehistoric Trackways National
Monument. The legislation's stated goal is to conserve, protect, and
enhance the unique and nationally important paleontological, scientific,
educational, scenic, and recreational resources and values of the area.
We strongly support those goals and legislation to implement them. We
would like the opportunity to work with Senator Bingaman, as well as
Senator Domenici and the Committee staff, on amendments which we believe
can improve the legislation.

Section 5(a)(3) of the bill directs the BLM to "manage public land
adjacent to the Monument in a manner that is consistent with the
protection of the resources and values of the monument." The intent of
this provision is not clear, and it is not clear how the BLM would
implement it. In addition, we would encourage the sponsor and the
Committee to include within the monument boundaries all public lands
intended for protection without setting up de facto buffer zones.

Section 5(d) of the bill gives priority to exhibiting and curating the
resources from the monument in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. Many, if not
most, of the significant specimen resources will remain in situ for
study. Those that are removed for scientific purposes deserve the
highest level of curation. At this time we are concerned that there may
not be adequate facilities in Doña Ana County for curation at the level
afforded by the excellent facility at the New Mexico Museum of Natural
History and Science. It may be preferable for curation to take place at
the museum in Albuquerque and then exhibition in Doña Ana County.

The legislation in section 5(g) withdraws the area from the land,
mining, mineral leasing and minerals materials laws. We generally
support this withdrawal in order to protect the important
paleontological resources within the proposed monument. We encourage the
sponsor and the Committee to consider whether it might be wise to
exclude a small 90 acre parcel on the southern boundary of the proposed
monument. Within this area is a ten acre site on which a mineral
materials operation has existed for a number of years. Continuation of
this operation should not interfere with the protection of the resources
within the monument and there is strong local demand for the rock
produced from the mine.

While we strongly support the concept of protecting the Prehistoric
Trackways, we believe a designation of the area as a National
Conservation Area (NCA) is more appropriate. The title of "National
Monument" may raise the expectation of the public that this area is
similar to an area like the Kasha Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument.
The visual qualities found at Tent Rocks will not be replicated at the
trackways site. An NCA would provide as much as or even more protection
for the trackways than a National Monument, depending on the legislation
written, and may be preferable.

Finally, we would like to clarify that the BLM does not regulate hunting
on public lands, but may in some circumstances work cooperatively with
the state to limit firearms in particular areas such as campgrounds or
active excavation sites.

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

We want to express our deep appreciation to Senator Bingaman and Senator
Domenici for introducing this legislation to protect the important
Paleozoic Trackways in south-central New Mexico. It is critical that we
protect these resources for future generations. We look forward to
working cooperatively with the Committee to ensure their protection.

**Statement of**

**Chad Calvert**

**Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary**

**Land and Minerals Management**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**S. 3794, Owyhee Initiative Implementation Act of 2006**

**September 27, 2006**

Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 3794 the Owyhee Initiative
Implementation Act of 2006. This bill is the culmination of a multi-year
effort to resolve many of the land use controversies in southwestern
Idaho. The Department of Interior commends the hard work, diligence and
cooperative spirit of the participants of this effort. Senator Crapo
deserves special recognition for his ongoing commitment to the Owyhee
Initiative. I also want to recognize the dedication and collaborative
efforts of the Owyhee Initiative Work group. They have worked tirelessly
for several years to resolve land management issues in southwestern
Idaho. The Department of the Interior supports the resolution of local
land use conflicts and we will work with the sponsors and the Committee
to resolve or clarify issues raised related to land and grazing
preferences acquisition and valuation to help advance this effort.

**[Background]{.underline}**

Owyhee County encompasses over 7,600 square miles of the southwestern
corner of Idaho. With a population of just over 11,000, it is a
sparsely-peopled land where magnificent canyons, rushing rivers, and
wide-open skies dominate the landscape. Ranching is the traditional and
predominant economic force throughout Owyhee County.

In 2000, the Owyhee County Commissioners invited a number of interested
parties to begin discussions with an eye toward resolving a wide range
of natural resource issues in the county. Innumerable meetings,
conversations, and dialogues ensued. Over time, the Owyhee initiative
included representatives from many interests within the county,
including: local government officials, tribal representatives, ranchers,
conservationists, recreationists, and others. The BLM has provided
technical assistance and information to this group but is not a member
of the initiative group.

On May 10 of this year the Owyhee Initiative Agreement (Agreement) was
signed by 12 representatives and in early August, Senator Crapo
introduced S. 3794 aimed at implementing that initiative.

**[Title I---Owyhee Initiative Agreement]{.underline}**

Title I describes the role of the Secretary of the Interior. We suggest
clarifying several parts of the Secretary's role. Section 2(b) states
that the purpose of S. 3794 is to provide for the implementation of the
Agreement, but the language in the rest of the title is ambiguous as to
what is expected of the Department. Section 102, for example, requires
the Secretary to coordinate with the Board of Directors of the Owyhee
Initiative Project in conducting the science review processes outlined
in the Agreement, however, it does not make clear the Secretary's
responsibilities (if any) in the conduct of the science review process
or requirements on how the information from the science review process
is to be used. Likewise section 103 references the Conservation and
Research Center described in the Agreement. While \$20 million is
authorized to the Secretary to carry out the provisions of Title I, it
is not clear how these funds are to be expended or what the Secretary's
responsibilities are in expending them. In particular, we would be
concerned about the ongoing costs of establishing and operating a new
Conservation and Research Center. These questions should be resolved
before moving the legislation forward.

**[Title II---Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers]{.underline}**

The Department of the Interior supports the Wilderness and Wild and
Scenic River designations in the bill, subject to adjustments in
boundaries and management language as is routine in such proposed
designations.

In general, the Department of the Interior supports the efforts of
Congressional delegations to resolve wilderness issues in their states.
Congress has the sole authority to designate lands to be managed as
wilderness and we have repeatedly urged that these issues be addressed
legislatively. It is our general policy to defer to the consensus of a
state's delegation in the designation of wilderness and the release of
wilderness study areas (WSAs) while at the same time making
recommendations for boundary adjustments to ensure that designated areas
can be managed as wilderness.

Section 201 of Title II of S. 3794 designates as wilderness over a
half-million acres in six separate areas. This section also releases
approximately 200,000 acres from WSA status and will return these lands
to non-wilderness, multiple use status. We have been working with
Senator Crapo's office to construct maps for this title and our comments
are based on those maps dated September 14, 2006. The Department
generally supports the designations and releases proposed by the
legislation.

The areas identified to be designated as wilderness include: Big Jacks
Creek Wilderness, Bruneau-Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness, Little Jacks Creek
Wilderness, North Fork Owyhee Wilderness, Owyhee River Wilderness and
Pole Creek Wilderness. These proposed wilderness areas contain some of
the most beautiful and remote desert landscapes in the American West.
The terrain within the proposed wilderness is diverse, ranging from deep
river canyons to vast sagebrush and grassland plateaus that provide
habitat for sage grouse, pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, songbirds,
raptors, and numerous rare plant species. The river canyons are
spectacular. Many are more than 1,000 feet deep - nearly twice as deep
as the Washington Monument is tall.  Rivers meander for hundreds of
miles through southwestern Idaho and form what may be the largest, most
unaltered, desert region remaining in the continental United States.

Section 202 would designate more than 380 miles of waterways as segments
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These 25 segments ranging from 6
tenths of a mile to 67 miles would be established on 20 different rivers
including the Owyhee, Bruneau, and Jarbidge Rivers. As with wilderness,
it is the prerogative of the Congress to make determinations for
additions to the Wild and Scenic River System and we generally defer to
the consensus of individual congressional delegations while providing
input on manageability and potential conflicts. We would like the
opportunity to clarify some of the management language to ensure
consistency with the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.

The proposed additions to the Wild and Scenic River System are rugged,
isolated and unique. This region, the Owyhee Uplands, is unlike any
other desert region in the United States because it is dissected by
hundreds of miles of free-flowing rivers. The rivers begin in the
mountains of northern Nevada and, flowing north, radiate like spokes
across southwestern Idaho. Each river has cut a deep, magnificent canyon
through alternating layers of black and red volcanic rock. Each river is
also an oasis for wildlife, including bighorn sheep and large flocks of
waterfowl. There are no paved roads along any of these rivers and only a
few dirt roads provide limited access to these remote streams. The
larger rivers, like the Owyhee and Bruneau, contain some of the most
challenging whitewater in the United States. River enthusiasts come from
around the country to float these rivers and experience one of the
ultimate river adventures in the United States.

**[Section 204---Land Exchanges and Acquisitions and Grazing
Preferences]{.underline}**

The Department would like to work with the Committee, Senator Crapo, and
the Owyhee Initiative to clarify Section 204 of S. 3794, which addresses
land valuation issues and the Secretary's authorities and
responsibilities under this section.

In December 2004, then Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton issued
policy guidance (Secretary of the Interior Order No. 3258) to all
Interior bureaus on legislative exchanges and land valuation issues.
This policy was developed to ensure that land transactions are conducted
with integrity and earn public confidence.

The policy requires that the Department subject all exchanges or sales
of real property or interests in real property to appraisals that
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 of alternative
methods of valuation in appraisals. The policy recognizes, however,
there may be times when Congress will direct 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 directed
by Congress, provide this material to the appropriate Committees prior
to or after completion of the transaction, as required by the direction.

Section 204 appears to require the Secretary of the Interior to enter
into a number of exchanges and acquisitions of land and grazing
preferences from private parties within Owyhee County. We note that the
language as drafted is ambiguous. In the absence of explicit direction
from Congress, the Department views this language in its entirety as
providing discretion to carry out the acquisitions provided for under
subsection (a), and would apply the Department's land transaction
standards with regard to valuation and public interest that are
contained in the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA).

Section 206 of the FLPMA provides the BLM with the authority to
undertake land exchanges where the Secretary "determines that the public
interest will be well served by making that exchange." Exchanges allow
the BLM to acquire environmentally-sensitive lands while transferring
public lands into private ownership for local needs and consolidating
scattered tracts.

Section 204(a)(3) of the bill, however, specifically references a
document entitled "Land Exchanges and Acquisitions" and dated September
1, 2006. This document includes a list of properties to be exchanged to
the Federal government or acquired by the Federal government along with
assigned monetary values as well as a description of Federal lands
available to landowners for exchange. The discretion provided in the
general authority to carry out section 204(a), means that the direction
contained in the document entitled "Land Exchanges and Acquisition" will
not control the terms of these transactions. In addition, this section
of the bill references the September 2006 document for purposes of
identifying the land or interest that may be acquired. It does not
incorporate the terms of that document into the Act. The Department will
therefore look to FLPMA with regard to these transactions.

The BLM has not had an opportunity to fully assess the values of the
various parcels of land proposed for exchange to or acquisition by the
Federal government under section 204(a). In addition, many of the lands
identified for exchange to private parties from the Federal government
have not been identified and would be subject to surveys for cultural
resources and wildlife habitat values. Such detail is necessary to
ensure the public interest is served in exchanging these lands. The
Department would like to work with the Committee to modify the
legislation to clearly state that the land exchanges and acquisitions
authorized by the bill take place in accordance with uniform appraisal
standards.

Finally, section 204(b) provides for the buyout by the Federal
government of grazing interests according to values assigned them in the
September 1, 2006, document entitled "Land Exchanges and Acquisitions."
While we oppose the permanent retirement of grazing permits, we
acknowledge that the goals of the Owyhee Initiative behind this proposal
are consistent with the multiple use mission of the BLM. We are
committed to working with the Committee, Senator Crapo, and the Owyhee
Initiative to reconcile their specific objectives on this landscape with
our longstanding position.

We also note that, because this section does not give the Secretary
discretion, it would appear that Congress intends to determine the value
of these interests in accordance with the referenced document. This
diverges from the valuation process in section 402(g) of FLPMA which
provides that, when grazing leases are canceled in whole or in part, a
permittee or lessee shall receive reasonable compensation for the
adjusted value, to be determined by the Secretary, of his or her
interest in authorized permanent improvements made by the permittee or
lessee, but not to exceed the fair market value of the terminated
portion of the permittee's or lessee's interest. Without conducting
appraisals, the Department is unable to determine whether the amounts
provided for in the referenced document are consistent with the
valuation method provided in FLPMA. The Department would like to work
with the Committee to ensure that the grazing provisions of the bill
provide a fair outcome for all parties.

The legislation would also permanently retire the AUMs associated with
conveyed preference rights. This approach is consistent with a
Solicitor's Opinion issued by Solicitor Bill Myers in 2002 which stated
only Congress can permanently retire AUMs permitted in districts
originally created pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act, where these lands
had been identified as "chiefly valuable for grazing."

**[Title III---Transportation and Recreation Management]{.underline}**

This title calls on the BLM to establish travel plans for the areas
covered by this legislation. The BLM in Idaho is currently working on
travel management plans (TMPs) for a number of the areas covered by the
legislation and supports the development and implementation of TMPs as
part of an open and inclusive public process. We would like the
opportunity to work with the sponsors and the Committee to make these
provisions consistent with the land use planning process and to clarify
the intent of certain sections of Title III.

Finally, section 303 calls on the BLM to establish a search and rescue
program in cooperation with the county. Search and rescue operations are
traditionally local functions and the BLM does not have the expertise to
establish such a program. The language in the bill provides the
Department considerable discretion in negotiating this agreement and we
welcome more specificity to ensure the sponsors' expectations are
clearly understood.

**[Title IV---Cultural Resources]{.underline}**

Title IV provides for the implementation of a plan for the management of
cultural resources on public lands by the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the
Duck Valley Indian Reservation. The BLM and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe
have an excellent cooperative relationship and work together effectively
on a wide range of public land management issues in southwest Idaho. We
look forward to continuing and expanding this cooperative relationship.
We oppose this section as written, because it does not clearly reserve
to BLM appropriate oversight and ultimate enforcement authority over the
lands in question.

This language may change or alter the way in which cultural and historic
resources are managed by the BLM on public lands. Under Federal law
(including FLPMA, the Antiquities Act, the National Historic
Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Archaeological Resources Protection
Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of
1990) the BLM is mandated to protect cultural and historic resources and
to consult with federally-recognized tribes regarding that protection.
The BLM routinely consults with Tribes regarding the management of
cultural resources of interest to them. The BLM and other Federal
land-managing agencies have the authority to enter into cooperative
agreements and partnerships with Tribes to enhance our government to
government relationship. For example, the BLM has a cooperative
agreement with the Pueblo de Cochiti to co-manage the Kasha Katuwe Tent
Rocks National Monument in New Mexico. However, in the end, the BLM
maintains responsibility for the enforcement of Federal law. We look
forward to working with the Committee toward clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of all stakeholders under this title.

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

We have great respect for the hard work and commitment shown by the
participants in the Owyhee Initiative process, and offer to work with
the sponsors and the Committee to clarify the bill and advance this
effort. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may
have.