**Statement of**

**Luke Johnson, Deputy Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**H.R. 838, Park City, Utah Land Conveyance**

**February 27, 2008**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 838 which provides for
the disposal of four parcels of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed
lands in Park City, Utah. As a matter of policy, we support working with
states and local governments to resolve land tenure and land transfer
issues that advance worthwhile public policy objectives, and we have no
objection to the transfer of these specific lands out of Federal
ownership. The Department of the Interior is mindful that legislated
land transfers often promote varied public interest considerations; part
of our role is to help inform Congress and the public about the
tradeoffs associated with such transfers. In general, we support the
goals of the legislation, but would be able to support the bill only if
amended to address a number of issues raised in this testimony,
particularly the proposed transfer of high-value land without
compensation to taxpayers.

**[Background]{.underline}**

Originally founded as a silver mining town in the 1860s, the last of
Park City's mines closed in the early 1970s. Today, Park City is
recognized as one of the premier ski destinations in the country. Many
of the events for the 2002 Winter Olympics were held in Park City which
is home to three elite resorts: Park City Mountain Resort, Deer Valley
Resort and the Canyons Resort. Growth in Park City and Summit County has
been monumental over the last few decades, and housing and land prices
are among the highest in Utah.

The BLM manages four parcels of Federal land within Park City, in the
Deer Valley area. They range in size from a half acre to just over 91
acres. These parcels are interspersed with high end housing and have
encumbrances on them including old unpatented mining claims,
rights-of-way, and old mining houses in trespass. Additionally, the BLM
has a Recreation & Public Purposes (R&PP) lease with the city on the
largest of the parcels (Parcel 16, the Gambel Oak Parcel). This lease
was first issued to the city in 1985 for the purpose of the planned
development of recreational facilities. That lease is currently a source
of contention between the BLM and Park City because the City's R&PP
development plans have not been completed, and there is no legal public
access to the parcel. The BLM understands that Park City has
reconsidered its plans and wishes to maintain the land for open space,
not public recreation. Open space that does not provide any additional
public value, such as recreational facilities, is not an allowed use
under the R&PP Act.

**[H.R. 838]{.underline}**

Section 1 of H.R. 838 proposes to convey to Park City, Utah all right,
title and interest of the United States to two parcels of land in the
Deer Valley area. These parcels are generally known as the White Acre
Parcel (Parcel 8) and the Gambel Oak Parcel (Parcel 16); together, they
comprise just over 112 acres. The White Acre Parcel is public land
currently identified for disposal through BLM's land use planning
process, while the Gambel Oak Parcel is currently under an R&PP lease to
the city. The bill directs that the lands be maintained by the city as
"open space and used solely for public recreation purposes . . .".
Finally, this section requires Park City to pay the Secretary of the
Interior an amount consistent with recreational pricing under the R&PP
Act. Under the R&PP Act, a conveyance to governmental entities for
recreational purposes is without cost.

We should note that if the lands were to be administratively patented to
Park City under the R&PP Act, "open space" would not be an acceptable
use of the lands unless qualifying recreational facilities were part of
the proposal. It should be noted that these are high value lands. If
these lands were sold to Park City for open space under authority other
than the R&PP Act, the Federal government would be compensated at fair
market value.

Furthermore, the legislation appropriately provides for the transfer of
the lands subject to valid existing rights. The Gambel Oak Parcel has 11
unpatented mining claims held by three different claimants. No validity
exams have been undertaken on these claims under a previous agreement
with Park City. The BLM rarely conveys land with these types of
substantial, valid existing rights, but it is not unprecedented. We note
that the parcel also contains a number of rights-of-way. BLM regularly
conveys land subject to rights-of-way.

Furthermore, we recommend the addition of a reversionary clause at the
discretion of the Secretary. Such a clause would ensure that the Federal
government retains a reversionary interest in these lands if they are
not used for the specific purposes for which they are transferred.

Section 2 of the bill directs the sale of two additional parcels, Parcel
17 (0.5 acres) and Parcel 18 (3.09 acres) at auction and requires that
the sale follow the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, except for
planning provisions in sections 202 and 203. There are a number of
encumbrances on these parcels. Specifically, Parcel 18 includes a
portion of one mining claim as well as several late 19^th^ century
buildings that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Ownership status of these buildings remains unresolved. Several of these
houses are currently occupied in trespass, and one is the subject of an
outstanding color-of-title ruling by the Interior Board of Land Appeals
(IBLA). Last fall an additional color-of-title claim was filed against
the remaining three buildings. Additionally, the parcels contain a
number of existing rights-of-way. The legislation provides for the
auction subject to valid existing rights.

It is important to note that the existing mining claims, trespass
actions, title disputes, and related activities on these lands may
significantly complicate a conveyance. In particular we recommend
removing from the auction the piece of land in Parcel 18 on which IBLA
has determined a color-of-title action.

Section 3 provides for the deposit of the receipts from the sales under
section 2 into a special account in the Treasury. These funds would then
be available for reimbursement of costs associated with the sales and
environmental restoration projects on public lands in the general area.
We are concerned that disposition of receipts in this manner would
circumvent BLM's normal budget process which takes into account the
resource needs of BLM offices in each state. We suggest that any
receipts from this land transfer either be directed to the Federal
Treasury or be deposited in the land sale account already established
under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA), where the
proceeds could be directed to priority acquisitions of inholdings,
primarily within the State of Utah.

In addition, the Administration does not support section 3(b), which
allows any amounts deposited in the special account to earn interest.
The Department of the Treasury strongly opposes such provisions, which
effectively require the Treasury to borrow more funds to pay this
interest.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, I will be happy to answer any
questions.

**Statement of**

**Luke Johnson, Deputy Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**H.R. 523, Douglas County, Washington, PUD Conveyance Act**

**February 27, 2008**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 523. This legislation
directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain public lands
located wholly or partially within the boundaries of the Wells Dam
Hydroelectric Project \[Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No.
2149-19795\] (Project) to Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas
County, WA (PUD). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports this
conveyance. During consideration of H.R. 523 by the House Committee on
Natural Resources in the 1st session of this Congress, the BLM raised
several concerns. These were resolved to our satisfaction in the
legislation passed by the House of Representatives on October 22, 2007,
and referred to the Senate. The BLM therefore supports H.R. 523.

Since 1998, the PUD has expressed a strong desire to purchase all
BLM-managed public lands within the Project boundaries. Some of the
public lands the PUD wishes to acquire are located within the boundaries
of the Project. These were reserved for power site purposes by order of
the Federal Power Commission (FPC Order dated July 12, 1962, for Power
Project No. 2149). Also, the PUD has requested some public lands that
lie outside (but contiguous to) the designated project boundary. The
PUD's 50-year license for the project expires on May 31, 2012. Its
application for relicensing must be filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) by 2010. The BLM, with management
responsibilities for land located within Project boundaries, is in the
initial stages of preparing to participate in the section 4(e) \[Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 797(e)\] relicensing process.

In testimony on H.R. 523 before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee
on National Parks, Public Lands, and Forests (May 10, 2007), the BLM
raised two concerns. The Subcommittee subsequently adopted an amendment
in the nature of a substitute that addressed our concerns, as follows:

-   Resource safeguards. BLM had encouraged the sponsor and the
    Subcommittee to provide safeguards to protect the known resource
    values on these lands, which include Bald Eagle roosts and
    approximately two miles of Columbia River shoreline currently open
    to the public. The amendment adopted by the Subcommittee added
    assures this protection will be provided through the relicensing
    process. The amendment added a new "Retained Authority" provision
    under which the Secretary of the Interior's role and participation
    in the relicensing action for the PUD is preserved even though the
    Federal government would no longer own land within the Project
    boundary. The BLM does not object to Section 5; as noted previously,
    we are already in the initial stages of preparing for the
    relicensing process and will fulfill that obligation.

-   Disposition of Funds. BLM recommended that Section 3(f) of the
    legislation be amended to direct that the proceeds from the sales be
    deposited in the "Federal Land Disposal Account" established by
    P.L.106-248, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA).
    This recommendation was adopted.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be glad to answer
questions.

**Statement of**

**Luke Johnson, Deputy Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**S. 832, Turnabout Ranch, Utah Land Conveyance**

**February 27, 2008**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 832, a bill to convey
approximately 25 acres of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to Turnabout Ranch in Utah. The BLM supports this legislation.

**[Background]{.underline}**

Turnabout Ranch is both a working ranch and a residential treatment
center for troubled teens. Located north of Escalante, Utah the ranch is
adjacent to Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (Monument).
Several years ago, the owners of Turnabout Ranch realized that they were
using a field that is on BLM-managed lands within the Monument for
pasture and a corral and approached the BLM about purchasing these
lands. It is clear that this long-standing trespass was inadvertent.
(These lands were originally owned by the state of Utah and were
exchanged to the BLM following the Monument designation under the
provisions of Public Law 105-335.) These approximately 25 acres, which
are on the edge of the Monument, are critical to the effective
functioning of the ranch and treatment center. The BLM cannot undertake
a sale of this parcel to the Ranch because the acres are within the
Monument boundary.

**[S. 832]{.underline}**

S. 832 provides for a legislated sale of the 25 acres on which Turnabout
Ranch is in trespass to the ranch for appraised fair market value. The
bill specifies that the appraisal be completed in accordance with the
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions and the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. It further
provides that all costs related to the sale be borne by Turnabout Ranch.
Finally, following the sale of the land, the boundary of the Monument is
modified to exclude just these 25 acres from the edge of the Monument.

The BLM has taken a close look at the land proposed for sale to the
Ranch under S. 832. It is our belief that sale of these lands will not
undermine the purposes for which the Monument was established.
Therefore, we support this legislative remedy to clear title issues with
a suggestion for one very technical modification.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

**Statement of**

**Luke D. Johnson, Deputy Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**S. 2229, Wyoming Range Legacy Act of 2007**

**February 27, 2008**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2229, the Wyoming Range
Legacy Act of 2007. The bill provides for the legislative withdrawal of
1.2 million acres of land from mineral development, subject to valid
existing rights, and offers existing lessees an opportunity for the
voluntary retirement of their lease.

The Administration supports this bill, and looks forward to working with
the Congress to address issues such as the potential budgetary impact
and necessary offsets. The Department does have concerns with the bill
as drafted, and would like to work with our sister agency, the U.S.
Forest Service, and the Committee to address those concerns. This area
contains significant energy resources, and we are concerned that a
withdrawal from mineral development that is too broad could
significantly impact the Administration's efforts to ensure access to
important energy resources. The Department is also concerned that it
could leave these Federal resources vulnerable to drainage, without
appropriate compensation to the Federal Treasury and the State, if
development occurs on adjacent private lands. We would like to work with
the Forest Service and the Committee to determine appropriate boundaries
and acreage associated with the withdrawal. For example, one issue to
consider is whether there could be restrictions on surface disturbance,
while allowing the Federal resources to be extracted from adjacent BLM
lands.

There are currently 76 oil and gas leases held by production and 26
hardrock mining claims located within or adjacent to the proposed
withdrawal area. We note that S. 2229 contains language in section 3(a)
that preserves valid existing rights, a provision we support and
consider very important for two reasons. First, those companies that
have existing leases and mining claims should be able to rely upon the
certainty of those underlying documents in making investment decisions
critical to the development of the resources. Second, the resources at
issue are potentially significant. BLM estimates that the 1.2 million
acre area covered by the bill contains 8.8 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas and 331 million barrels of oil that are technically
recoverable using today's technology. The natural gas alone amounts to
roughly one-third of a year's annual natural gas consumption for the
entire nation. This production could have a substantial impact on
royalty revenues that would otherwise be shared by the Federal Treasury
and the State of Wyoming for the benefit of taxpayers.

While the bill recognizes valid existing rights for issued leases, the
bill does not recognize the importance of those oil and gas leases that
have already been sold at competitive sale, but are awaiting a final
decision. These leases were offered in accordance with the land use
planning process. We believe the Federal Government needs to be a
reliable partner when companies make major financial investments.

With regard to the provisions in S. 2229 concerning the voluntary
retirement of leases using non-federal funds, we do not object to the
concept. However, we have concerns about the methods and processes set
forth in the bill and suggest a number of amendments. We stand ready to
work with the Forest Service, the bill sponsors, and the Committee to
find a solution that will meet the needs of the American public and the
citizens of Wyoming.

**[S.2229]{.underline}**

S. 2229 provides for the withdrawal of approximately 1.2 million acres
of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (BTNF) from location, entry,
leasing and patent under the mining law, mineral leasing laws, and
public land laws, subject to valid existing rights. Also, the bill
offers existing lessees the opportunity to voluntarily submit a written
request for the retirement and repurchase of their lease and directs
that the purchase price be based on the fair market value of the lease
as determined by an agreed-upon appraisal.

The bill authorizes the Secretary to accept donations of lease interests
and to use non-Federal funds to pay for the purchase of the lease. It
specifies that the Act is not meant to limit compensation from a
private, State or other source in lieu of, or in addition to, receiving
compensation under the Act. Presumably, these provisions were intended
to allow lessees to receive monies directly from outside groups and then
donate or waive their claim to compensation from the Secretary. The
acquired leases would be cancelled and made subject to the withdrawal.

**[Mineral Resources Within the Withdrawal Area]{.underline}**

The Forest Service is responsible for the surface management of National
Forest System land; however, the Secretary of the Interior and BLM have
a vital interest in mineral development as the agency responsible for
administering the 700 million acres of subsurface estate under the
Mining Law of 1872 and various mineral leasing acts. BLM issues mineral
leases upon concurrence of the surface management agency and works
cooperatively with the agency to ensure that management goals and
objectives for mineral exploration and development activities are
achieved, that operations are conducted to minimize effects on natural
resources, and that the land affected by minerals operations is
reclaimed.

The Bridger-Teton National Forest issued the Record of Decision for
their revised Forest Plan on March 2, 1990. The revised Forest Plan
provided for leasing of the areas proposed for withdrawal under the
bill. While the BLM has leases dating back to 1964 within the Wyoming
Range, approximately 40 leases have been issued under the revised plan.
Within the proposed withdrawal area, there are 143 issued or pending oil
and gas leases covering more than 197,000 acres; 76 of these leases are
currently under production. Bonus bids collected in 2006 on 12
competitive leases totaled almost \$2.6 million. The withdrawal
provisions in the bill preserve valid rights "in existence on the date
of enactment." In 2006, twelve parcels were leased with bonus bids
totaling nearly \$2.6 million. Those leases are currently suspended,
awaiting further NEPA analysis following an IBLA ruling. An additional
23 leases were sold in Fiscal Year 2006 with bonus bids totaling
approximately \$2.2 million. Those leases were not issued and have been
placed in a pending status with the money in escrow until the additional
NEPA work required by the IBLA decision is completed. We recommend that
the bill be amended to preserve the opportunity for the 23 leases in
pending status to be issued and developed, and that the voluntary
retirement provisions also apply.

In addition to oil and gas leases, as noted earlier, there are 26 mining
claims located within or adjacent to the proposed withdrawal area as
well as one 160-acre sodium lease. While no activity is currently taking
place on existing claims and the lease described above, the claimants
are continuing to pay annual maintenance fees and the lessee is
continuing to pay rental fees to preserve options for future
development.

**[Proposed Amendments]{.underline}**

We suggest a number of amendments to the provisions providing for the
voluntary retirement of existing leases. Section 4 (b) of S. 2229
states, "The Secretary may use non-Federal funds to purchase any lease
from a lessee who requests retirement and repurchase of the lease under
subsection (a)." There is no clear indication that the Secretary has
discretion in whether to purchase the lease if non-Federal funds are not
available. Furthermore, the bill does not specify who would be
responsible for funding the appraisals. It is our understanding that the
intent of the bill is to provide a process by which outside groups could
fund the voluntary retirement of the leases. We suggest that the bill be
amended to allow the Secretary to accept the relinquishment by lessees
of their lease interest and subsequently provide for their retirement.
The bill should make clear that there is no duty for the Secretary to
purchase any lease without a donation or other non-Federal funds being
made available in advance. The Secretary should not be involved in the
actual collection of donated funds or the repurchasing of leases.
Compensating a lessee for the voluntary relinquishment of a lease should
be handled using only private funding, and the Federal Government should
not be involved in those transactions. We are also concerned about the
advisability of retiring leases that have already been placed into
production.

We would like to point out that the retirement and repurchase provisions
in the bill only apply to leased minerals. However, the bill provides
for the withdrawal of this area from location, entry, and patent under
the mining laws and mineral leasing laws. Thus, these mining claimants
would not be provided the same option for purchase of their interest
under the bill.

**[Environmental Best Management Practices and the Technology of Mineral
Development Today]{.underline}**

Our Nation faces a great challenge in meeting its energy needs. We
consume much more than we produce; this is especially true for oil. We
are importing about 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources -- a
percentage that is expected to increase to 68 percent by 2025. We need
to protect our economic and national security by increasing our ability
to produce more of our energy domestically in a prudent and
environmentally sensitive way. In 2007, Federal production in Wyoming
was 34.4 million barrels of oil and 1.36 TCF of natural gas. During this
same time period, total Federal onshore production was 104.7 million
barrels of oil and 2.8 TCF of natural gas. We appreciate the tremendous
contribution the state of Wyoming makes to our Country's energy
security.

The BLM also appreciates the non-energy uses and values that our public
lands provide to the American people, such as outstanding hunting and
fishing opportunities, diverse recreational activities, and habitat to a
wide array of wildlife. While one option of retaining habitat and
recreational values in the Bridger-Teton National Forest is to withdraw
the land from mineral development, other possibilities exist. Across the
country, hunting and fishing and other recreational activities occur
side by side with energy and other resource development activities. When
properly planned, energy development activities and resource protection
are not mutually exclusive concepts. To the contrary, our experience
shows that sound stewardship can be achieved contemporaneously with
energy development. To this end, we would like to take this opportunity
to highlight the cooperative efforts by BLM, surface management
agencies, the states, and industry to employ new technologies and
environmental best management practices (BMPs), which have been
successful in decreasing the footprint of energy development and
mitigating the impact of operations on important natural resource
values.

For example, the energy industry's drilling technology has now evolved
to the point where 22 or more deep gas wells can typically be drilled
side-by-side, 7 feet apart, on a well pad that is no larger than the
traditional single well pads of the past. This new practice
significantly reduces the surface footprint of new development by
eliminating, in this example, the other 21 well pads, roads, and sets of
utilities. When combined with the use of centralized offsite production
facilities, the need for roads, well pads, and truck traffic is greatly
reduced. This is extremely important when it comes to protecting
wildlife habitat and recreational resources.

To further reduce the visual footprint of development, new facilities
can also be screened, painted, and even camouflaged. Full interim
reclamation of nearly all disturbed areas can help to ensure soils stay
in place and habitat values are protected during the life of
development. When further protection is needed, development can also be
slowly phased, one site at a time, without moving to a new area until
the first area is operational, gated, and has undergone successful
interim reclamation. Today's practices are a major advancement from
those of even three years ago, and we expect the trend to continue.

Other tools are also available besides withdrawal to ensure non-surface
occupancy of areas with significant environmental and recreation values.
Moreover, we believe it is possible to consider withdrawals more
selectively, rather than as a blanket approach.

These examples of BMP's and the use of continuously evolving technology
indicate that environmentally conscious development of energy resources
can occur in a multiple use environment.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any
questions.

**Statement of**

**Luke Johnson, Deputy Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**S. 2379, Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable
Grazing Conflict Resolution Act**

**February 27, 2008**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 2379, the
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable Grazing
Conflict Resolution Act. While we support the goals of this legislation
we cannot support some of the specific provisions. We would like the
opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee to address these
issues.

**[Background]{.underline}**

The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument (Monument) was established by
Presidential Proclamation on June 9, 2000. Encompassing nearly 53,000
acres of Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
the Monument is a place of great biological diversity due to its
location at the confluence of three converging mountain ecoregions---the
Cascade, Klamath and Eastern Cascade. The proclamation withdrew these
public lands from a number of uses and limited commercial harvest of
timber within the Monument "except when part of an authorized
science-based ecological restoration project." Additionally, the
proclamation directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a study
of livestock grazing within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and
the effects of grazing on the Monument with specific attention to
sustaining the natural ecosystem dynamics.

The BLM has been managing the Monument consistent with the proclamation
for nearly eight years. A comprehensive management plan is currently
pending final approval. Additionally, the BLM recently completed the
mandated studies of livestock impacts within the Monument and released
them to the public. The findings of these studies are currently being
evaluated by the BLM, along with other available data, to determine
whether grazing is occurring consistent with the Presidential
Proclamation establishing the Monument. Currently 11 ranchers hold
grazing leases within the Monument that authorize use of 2,714 active
animal unit months (AUMs).

**[S. 2379]{.underline}**

S. 2379, the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Voluntary and Equitable
Grazing Conflict Resolution Act, provides for: a Federal buyout of
grazing preferences within the Monument; a land exchange within the
Monument between the BLM and a private landowner; and, the designation
of approximately 23,000 acres of land within the Monument as wilderness.
The bill as introduced references maps without dates. It is our
understanding that it is the sponsor's intention to reference a map
created by the BLM at the request of his office. This testimony is based
on that map dated December 12, 2006.

Section 4 of S. 2379 establishes a program to buy out grazing lessees
within the Monument, requiring the Secretary (subject to the
availability of funds) to offer payment of \$300 an AUM to ranchers with
authorized grazing within the Monument. If an individual rancher accepts
the payment, the Secretary then must terminate the grazing lease and
permanently end grazing in the allotment or portion of the grazing
allotment. Donation of grazing leases, and subsequent mandatory grazing
closures, are also contained in the bill. In addition, the BLM is
obligated under the bill to construct and maintain fencing to exclude
livestock from grazing allotments where the BLM may no longer lease
grazing use. Finally, three grazing allotments that have been vacant for
over a decade are permanently retired from grazing by the legislation.

[]{.mark}

The BLM is opposed to Federal government buyouts of grazing permits and
the permanent retirement of those permits. However, the BLM also
recognizes the value of working cooperatively and collaboratively with
local stakeholders to fulfill its multiple use mission on BLM lands. The
BLM is committed to working with the committee, the sponsors, and
stakeholders in the spirit of cooperative conservation within our
existing authority.

In addition, we are opposed to language obligating the Federal
government to both construction and maintenance of fencing. Typically,
fencing decisions are made cooperatively by the BLM and the permittee,
and the BLM encourages cooperative cost sharing. The BLM's range
improvement policy requires that the BLM assign maintenance of
structural range improvements, such as fences, to the permittee who is
obligated to maintain them. This legislation represents a serious
divergence from two decades of land management practices.

Section 5 of the bill provides for a land exchange between the BLM and
the Box R Ranch. We believe that the public interest would be served by
this exchange; however, we recommend that the bill be amended to ensure
that the exchange is consistent with section 206 of the Federal Land
Policy Management Act regarding government land exchanges, including
appraisals and equal value exchange. Appraisals should follow nationally
recognized appraisal standards, such as the Uniform Appraisal Standards
for Federal Land Acquisitions and the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practice. The owner of Box R Ranch is obligated under Section
5 to donate his grazing lease to the Federal government. It is unclear
if the intent is to value the grazing lease as part of the exchange. As
noted above, we believe the exchange should independently stand on its
own.

The BLM-managed land proposed for exchange is an isolated parcel of land
surrounded by the Box R Ranch. The private land proposed for exchange to
the Federal government is important habitat for Jenny Creek suckers and
redband trout (both sensitive fish species), and its acquisition is
consistent with the goals of the Monument. We should note that both
parcels are within the Monument boundary.

Section 6 of S. 2379, designates approximately 23,000 acres of
BLM-managed land within the Monument as the Soda Mountain Wilderness
(this includes the present Soda Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA)).
The proposed Soda Mountain Wilderness hosts an unusually high variety of
species in a geographically small area due to several complex biological
and geological factors and processes operating simultaneously. Ranging
from 2,300 feet to 6,000 feet, the proposed wilderness area is a jewel
of biological variety and encompasses some of the most diverse
vegetation in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Plant communities
include open grassy slopes and meadows, hardwood and shrub woodlands, as
well as dense mixed conifer and white fir forests. The Oregon Gulch
Research Natural Area, with its mixed conifer Douglas-fir and Ponderosa
forest with large Sugar Pine and incense cedar, and Scotch Creek
Research Natural Area, with steep-sided drainages and waterfalls, are
within the proposed wilderness. Along with one of the highest
diversities of butterfly species in the United States (as many as 112
different species have been identified within the Monument), the area is
also home to an extensive population of small and large mammals
(including black-tailed deer, elk, bear, mountain lions and bobcats), as
well as widespread fish species in the many creeks. The area provides
critical habitat for several sensitive, rare, threatened, and/or
endangered species such as peregrine falcons, northern spotted owls,
Greene's mariposa lily, Gentner's frittilary, Bellinger's meadow foam,
redband trout, and the Mardon skipper butterfly.

Congress has the sole authority to designate lands to be managed
permanently as wilderness. We believe these areas are manageable as
wilderness, and we support the designation. There are some technical
issues related to section 6 that we would like the opportunity to
clarify. In particular, we would like the opportunity to work with the
sponsor and the Committee on possible minor boundary adjustments to
ensure efficient manageability and avoid conflicts.

Section 8 of the bill authorizes appropriations for compensation for
grazing buyouts, fencing and other costs to exclude cattle from
allotments that are retired. We oppose this section, and note that the
amounts authorized appear insufficient to complete the work anticipated
by the bill and that the BLM does not have alternative sources of
funding. In addition, the authorized amounts are not included in the
FY2009 President's Budget request and are not available within current
Congressional appropriations.

In addition to the specific issues we have raised, there are a number of
minor or technical modifications (including mapping issues) that we
would like to discuss with the sponsor, as well as the Committee, before
this legislation moves forward.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer any
questions.