**Statement of**

**Jim Hughes**

**Acting Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands & Forests**

**S. 390, Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act**

**May 3, 2007**

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 390, 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. 390 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.

**[Background]{.underline}**

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).

The legislation before us references maps, but not specifically dated
maps. The most recent maps completed by the BLM last year at the request
of the House Resources Committee are dated September 22, 2006, and our
discussion of the bill is based on those maps.

**[S. 390]{.underline}**

S. 390 directs the exchange of approximately 42,000 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:

-   640 acres on the eastern boundary of Arches National Park which will
    provide important viewshed protections;

-   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;

-   4,500 acres within the Castle Valley watershed which also has
    important wildlife habitat and scenic values;

-   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,

-   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:

-   2,800 acres of scattered parcels near the town of Green River which
    are suitable for private agricultural development; and

-   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]{.underline}**

In December of 2004, former Secretary Norton issued policy guidance to
all of the bureaus on legislative exchanges and land valuation issues.
On December 31, 2006, Secretary Dirk Kempthorne extended the policy
guidance until August 31, 2007. A copy of that guidance (Secretary of
the Interior Order No. 3258A2) 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 in June of 2005, 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. 390 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. 390 directs that all appraisals shall be in accordance with the
requirements of FLPMA and with the BLM's regulations governing
appraisals. However, we should point out that the FLPMA subsection
referenced in the bill (subsection 206(d)) does not relate to appraisal
standards. Subsection 206(f) of FLPMA relates to appraisal standards.
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.

Under Sec. 5(b)(4), the Federal government reserves a share of potential
future revenues from any mineral resource subject to lease under the
Mineral Leasing Act. Mineral resources leasable under the Mineral
Leasing Act include oil and gas and oil shale. However, the economic
viability of energy production from oil shale is currently unproven but
is under intensive study. This reserved interest arrangement is common
in the private sector and protects sellers from disposing entirely of
some unknown future mineral wealth.

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 standard
appraisal practice by directing that the appraisal be completed without
regard to the presence and any value contribution of minerals that are
eligible for lease under the Mineral Leasing Act but are not currently
leased. For such lands, the value increment attributable to the minerals
will not be determined and will not contribute to the transaction value
of the lands in the exchange. 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 conveyed to the State, does
not factor into the value because there are no comparable property
transactions known to be driven by the economics of oil shale
development, 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 consider all potential
uses of the property, including but not limited to, mineral resource
production and the resulting income stream. . The Department understands
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 provides that the transaction value of Federal leased
properties will be the market value less the percentage of the Federal
revenue sharing obligation under Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act.
We should note that the bill assumes that an appraisal would conclude
that the highest and best use of this property would be mineral resource
production and that may not be the case.

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 the bill's stated public policy
objectives.

**[Other Concerns]{.underline}**

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. 390 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 and clarify some
provisions, including section 4(a), to insure that the implementation of
the exchange is correctly and appropriately completed. Finally, we would
like to work with the sponsors and the Committee on new maps for the
legislation. It is our understanding that a number of technical
corrections need to be made to the maps.

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

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.

THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Washington

ORDER NO. 3258, Amendment No. 2 ***(Amended material italicized)***

SIGNATURE DATE: December 31, 2006

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]{.underline}.

\(1\) 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]{.underline}.

\(1\) 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]{.underline}.

\(1\) All officials and employees of the Department shall adhere to 461
DM 1, 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 ***August 31,
2007***.

/s/ DIRK KEMPTHORNE

Secretary of the Interior

SO#3258A2 12/31/06

Replaces SO#3258A1 7/28/06

Replaces SO#3258 12/30/04

**Statement of**

**Jim Hughes**

**Acting Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands & Forests**

**H.R. 276, Piedras Blancas Historic Light Station Outstanding Natural
Area Act**

**May 3, 2007**

Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 276, the Piedras Blancas
Historic Light Station Outstanding Natural Area Act which would
designate the Piedra Blancas Light Station as an Outstanding Natural
Area (ONA) within the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System
(NLCS). The Department supports H.R. 276.

**[Background]{.underline}**

The 18-acre Piedras Blancas Light Station sits on the coastal side of
California scenic route 1 (California Coastal Highway) near Hearst
Castle halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is an active
lighthouse which began continuous operation in 1875 and is on the
National Register of Historic Places. Formerly run by the Coast Guard,
it has been managed by the BLM since 2001. Today, in addition to its
safety role, the Light Station is a beacon of community support and
activism.

The proposed Piedras Blancas Historical Light Station ONA is adjacent to
the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, administered by NOAA. The
designation of the Piedras Blancas Light Station would provide a
compatible and valuable shore-based presence for this important national
treasure and promote historical and educational opportunities consistent
with the NLCS.

Community partnerships and an active volunteer force have allowed the
BLM to begin the important work of restoration of the light station.
Over 80 volunteers are actively involved in Piedras Blancas projects
contributing 8,000 hours of service over each of the last three years.
With strong local community support our partners include: The Friends of
the Piedras Blancas Light Station, Hearst San Simeon Historic Monument,
California State Parks, the Central Coast Maritime Museum, the Cambria
Historical Society and a wide-range of other federal, state and local
governmental agencies. In addition, monthly tours of the light station
are being conducted in conjunction with Hearst Castle.

**[H.R. 276]{.underline}**

H.R. 276 recognizes both the historical significance of the Piedras
Blancas Light Station and the community support for its preservation. By
designating the light station as an Outstanding Natural Area, the bill
follows in the footsteps of the Yaquina Head Outstanding Natural Area
along the Oregon coast established by Congress in 1980. In order to
safeguard the buildings and public lands immediately surrounding them
the bill provides protections for the area while encouraging and
enabling active community support and involvement. In addition, the bill
recognizes the importance of administering this area for educational,
scientific uses as well as for traditional Native American purposes.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 276. I will
be happy to answer any questions.

**Statement of**

**Jim Hughes**

**Acting Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

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

**Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests**

**S. 205 and H.R. 865, the Copper Valley Native Allotment Resolution
Act**

**May 3, 2007**

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

S. 205 and H.R. 865, the "Copper Valley Native Allotment Resolution Act
of 2007." The Department supports the goals of this legislation, which
would grant rights-of-way for electric transmission lines over certain
Alaska Native allotments but, as discussed in more detail below, we do
have some concerns with the bills.

**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. 205 and H.R.
865 would resolve the dispute by granting to Copper Valley a
right-of-way over the specific allotments listed in the bill. 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, using the date of
enactment of this legislation as the date of valuation. We have not yet
conducted any appraisals, but we do not expect these costs to be
significant. Senate bill 205 provides that compensation would be paid
from the Judgment Fund (31 U.S.C. 1304); the House bill is silent on
this issue.

As noted above, the Department supports the resolution of this matter,
and we appreciate changes made to the bills prior to their introduction
this year. However, we do have some concerns with the legislation. As an
initial matter, we have a concern in S. 205 regarding whether this is an
appropriate use of the Judgment Fund. Alternatively, we note that H.R.
865, which has passed the House, does not identify a source for
compensation payments. In the absence of a named source, we presume that
any compensation awarded under this legislation would be taken from
programmatic funding.

Additionally, we strongly recommend that the legislation contain
language ensuring that the allottees are provided compensation for the
past occupancy of the rights-of-way. We think this is an important issue
and one that should be addressed to ensure that the allottees are fully
compensated. We look forward to working with you on this matter.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I will be happy
to answer any questions.

**Statement of**

**Jim Hughes**

**Acting Director**

**Bureau of Land Management**

**Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Public Lands & Forests**

**S. 1139, National Landscape Conservation System Act**

**May 3, 2007**

Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 1139, the National Landscape
Conservation System Act. The National Landscape Conservation System
(NLCS) is a significant part of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
conservation efforts and is integral to the BLM's overall multiple-use
mission. The BLM is proud to oversee this system which includes areas
nationally recognized for their outstanding values. These lands are not
simply places to visit; they help define who we are as a Nation and tell
the story of our nation as it unfolded in the unforgettable natural
landscapes of the West.

The Department supports S. 1139, a bill that would legislatively
establish the NLCS in order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally
significant landscapes. The bill would provide for the inclusion in the
NLCS of Congressionally and Presidentially designated special places
administered by the BLM. S. 1139 would provide legislative support to
the NLCS and its conservation mission within the BLM.

**[Background]{.underline}**

In June 2000, the Department of the Interior administratively
established the NLCS within the BLM bringing into a single organized
system many of the BLM's outstanding ecological, cultural and scientific
landscapes. The BLM is charged with managing the public lands for a wide
range of uses. This multiple-use mission directs the balanced management
of public lands for many uses, including conservation, recreation,
livestock grazing, energy development, and timber production. The NLCS
is an integral part of that mission and includes National Monuments,
National Conservation Areas (NCAs), National Scenic and Historic Trails,
Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs).
The BLM, under the authority of section 603 of FLPMA, manages WSAs so as
not to impair their wilderness character. The establishment of the NLCS
would not change the status of the WSAs or the authority of Congress, at
some future time, to designate them as units of the National Wilderness
Preservation System or to release them for non-wilderness multiple use.

The NLCS currently includes 20 million acres of archaeological and
historic treasures such as Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in
Colorado and the Oregon National Historic Trail, wildlife havens such as
Snake River Birds of Prey NCA in Idaho and Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness in
Arizona, and hiking challenges such as King Range National Conservation
Area along the lost coast of northern California and significant
sections of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail as it winds its
way through New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana.

Over the last six years, since its inception, the NLCS has established
successful, collaborative relationships with local communities, States,
tribes, friends groups, and private citizens. These partnerships are
critical to the on-the-ground success of NLCS units.

In an increasingly crowded and fast-changing West, NLCS units provide
some of the best examples of open space. For the most part, NLCS units
are not highly developed. Rather, they provide visitors a different kind
of outdoor experience---an opportunity to explore, discover and relax.
These are places to get lost and find oneself.

Many NLCS units were designated specifically for their scientific
values. Recent discoveries at some NLCS units include cave-dwelling
millipedes previously unknown to science and numerous new species of
dinosaurs. In 2006, at Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the
discovery of one of the largest known oviraptor in the world (a giant
7-foot tall, 14-foot long flesh-eating, feathered dinosaur) was
revealed. The diverse opportunities for scientific inquiry allow NLCS
units to be used as outdoor laboratories by a wide range of
universities, colleges, and high schools including Brigham Young
University, Montana State University, Colorado State University,
Northern Arizona University, Universidad de Sonora (Mexico), Stanford
University, Boise State University, University of New South Wales
(Australia), Oregon State University, University of Utah, and the
University of Witwatersrand (South Africa). Their efforts also directly
benefit local communities. For example, studies of lava flows at Craters
of the Moon National Monument in collaboration with Idaho State
University contribute to hands-on science curriculum for local
elementary students.

Much of the support for NLCS units comes from local communities that
work with the BLM to engage in cooperative conservation that enhance
local economies, cultures, and resources. At New Mexico's Kasha-Katuwe
Tent Rocks National Monument, an inter-governmental cooperative
agreement between the BLM and the Pueblo de Cochiti has successfully
provided for enhanced visitor services while improving the health of the
land at this spectacular geologic wonder. In southern Arizona, Las
Cienegas NCA is collaborating with local ranchers, water districts, the
State and county to develop innovative solutions to managing this
precious watershed in a desert environment - all in the context of a
historic ranching community.

Many NLCS units are adjacent to growing urban centers and provide
respite from the city as well as recreational opportunities. Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument adjoins the burgeoning Palm
Springs area of California; McGinnis Canyons NCA lies near Grand
Junction, Colorado; and Red Rock Canyon NCA is located just outside of
Las Vegas, Nevada. Red Rock Canyon NCA has some of the highest
visitation of any BLM-administered site and serves as an adventurous
alternative for locals and visitors from Las Vegas' other attractions.
The many communities in California's Coachella Valley welcome the
undeveloped open spaces of the Congressionally designated Santa Rosa and
San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. Partnerships with the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Friends of the Desert Mountains,
and the cities of Palm Desert, Palm Springs, La Quinta, Cathedral City,
Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage and Indio have enhanced BLM's ability to
improve recreational opportunities while also providing for improved
habitat for the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. Colorado's growing
recreation industry promotes McInnis Canyon as a place for outdoor
activity including wilderness hiking, rafting and mountain biking.

From the remote, wild Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Area in the eastern part of the State, to coastal Yaquina
Head Outstanding Natural Area's lighthouse and tidal pools, the
diversity of NLCS units can be viewed across the breadth of Oregon. The
Oregon National Historic Trail and the interpretive center in Baker City
provide a window into our pioneer past and the 300,000 emigrants who
used this pathway to the Pacific. Three ecosystems collide in
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in southwestern Oregon forming a
unique assemblage of rare plants and animals. Oregon's 802 miles of wild
and scenic rivers provide unparalleled opportunities for fishing,
hunting and boating which contribute to economic diversity in local
communities.

**[S. 1139]{.underline}**

S. 1139 proposes to establish in statute the current administrative
structure of the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System. The bill
would not alter the management of its individual units. It recognizes
the diverse nature of the component parts of the BLM's NLCS by directing
that the units be managed in accordance with the laws related to each
individual unit. As each unit is unique, we strongly support this
recognition of their individual management frameworks.

By formalizing the NLCS, S. 1139 would give Congressional support and
direction, strengthening this special system of lands within the context
of the BLM's multiple-use mission. This will assure that these
landscapes of the American spirit would be conserved, protected, and
restored for the benefit of current and future generations.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1139. I will
be happy to answer any questions.