U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

23–045 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 109–104

LAND EXCHANGE BILLS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 100 S. 404

S. 235 H.R. 816

S. 741 S. 761

H.R. 486

MAY 11, 2005

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

FRANK GLADICS, Professional Staff Member 

SCOTT MILLER, Democratic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................. 12

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 1

Holtrip, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, 

Department of Agriculture, accompanied by Greg Smith, Director of Lands, 

U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ................................................ 2

Krupp, Christopher, Staff Attorney, Western Land Exchange Project, Seattle, 

WA ......................................................................................................................... 20

Lonnie, Thomas P., Assistant Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 7

Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado ................................................... 11

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 21

(1)

LAND EXCHANGE BILLS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2005

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests 

will be in order. My apologies for running a little late. I think we 

all got slightly dislocated for a few moments during the noon hour, 

but we’re back on track. 

Good afternoon to all of you. I want to welcome all of you to this 

legislative hearing: Joel Holtrip, Deputy Chief for the National Forest Service System, Tom Lonnie, BLM Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty, and Resource Protection. It’s nice to see both of you. 

Joel, I want to congratulate you on your recent promotion. I’m 

sure that we’ll be spending more quality time together now that 

you lead that portion of the Forest Service that this committee has 

responsibility for. 

Today, we are considering the following legislative proposals: S. 

100, to authorize the exchange of certain land in the State of Colorado; S. 235 and H.R. 816, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture 

to sell certain parcels of Federal land in Carson City and Douglas 

County, Nevada; S. 404, to make a technical correction relating to 

land conveyance authority by Public Law 108-67; S. 741, to provide 

for the disposal of certain Forest Service administrative sites in the 

State of Oregon, and for other purposes; S. 761 to rename the 

Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area in the State 

of Idaho as the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National 

Conservation Area in honor of the late Morley Nelson, an international authority on birds of prey who was instrumental in the establishment of the National Conservation Area, and for other purposes; and H.R. 486, to provide a land exchange involving private 

land and BLM land in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base, 

New Mexico, for the purpose of removing private land from the required safety zone surrounding munitions storage bunkers at 

Holloman Air Force Base. 

I do want to mention S. 761, my bill to rename the Snake River 

Birds of Prey National Conservation Area to the Morley Nelson 

2

Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area. Morley 

worked most of his life to ensure the protection of world-class management of this area. I believe that the area would not have been 

designated a national conservation area without his dedicated efforts, and I believe this Congress should recognize his hard work 

and dedication. Few were ever as committed to birds of prey, 

raptors, as was the late Morley Nelson. 

I know that Senators Smith and Wyden may want to speak on 

their bill, S. 741, to convey a number of administrative sites on several forests in Oregon, and then Senator Salazar may want to 

speak on S. 100, the Pitkin County, Colorado land exchange, so I’ll 

finish up here. 

I have two thoughts about today’s bills. First, this is the second 

time recently that a Member has brought forward a land exchange 

bill that should have been accomplished through the administrative 

process. But it has taken a decade of work and frustration before 

someone finally asked Congress to step in. I am increasingly troubled by the Federal agency’s inability to make the administrative 

land exchange process work in a timely manner. 

Last, I continue to be concerned about land conveyances that develop new ways to share the excess revenues or receipts from the 

conveyances or exchanges with the States and local governments. 

I’m worried that we are developing a new set of laws on Federal 

Government revenue sharing that will treat each State differently. 

And I hope we will think about this trend before we change the 

process to the point that it becomes something different for every 

state. 

None of my colleagues are here at this moment. So with that recognition, let me turn to our witnesses, who are here with us today, 

and Joel, we’ll start with you. 

STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTRIP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY GREG SMITH, DIRECTOR 

OF LANDS, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in order 

to provide the Department’s views on S. 100, Pitkin County Land 

Exchange Act, S. 235, and H.R. 816, Nevada National Forest Land 

Disposal Act; S. 404, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California Land 

Conveyance; and S. 741, Oregon National Forest Administrative 

Site Disposal Act. I am accompanied today by Greg Smith, U.S. 

Forest Service Director of Lands. 

S. 100 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange 13 

parcels of National Forest System lands totaling 11.42 acres and 

the Secretary of the Interior to exchange one 40-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management Land for two parcels of non-Federal 

land, 35 acres, and 18.2 acres. 

The Departments would have no objection to the enactment of S. 

100 if the reversionary clause in section 5(d)(1)(B) is modified. Interior would like the opportunity to work with the committee and the 

sponsors of the bill to ensure that the reversionary clause is discreVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:36 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 109104 PO 23045 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\23045.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
3

tionary for the Secretary of the Interior to avoid potential liability 

to the Federal Government. 

Also, the Departments would like the opportunity to finalize the 

map cited in the legislation to ensure the accuracy of the Federal 

parcels to be transferred. 

S. 235 and H.R. 816 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to 

sell seven isolated parcels of National Forest System land in Carson City or Douglas County, Nevada, ranging from 21⁄2 to 80 acres 

in size. Proceeds from the sales would be disbursed to various State 

and local entities and the Federal Government. 

The Department agrees these tracts of National Forest System 

land are difficult and inefficient to manage and appropriate for conveyance. The Department would not oppose the bill if the proceeds 

generated from the sale of these lands were used to fund critical 

facility maintenance and construction needs on National Forest 

System lands. We would like to work with the committee and the 

bill sponsors regarding the distribution and use of the proceeds 

generated from the sales of these Federal parcels. 

Public Law 108-67 directed the conveyance of approximately 24 

acres of National Forest System to the Department of the Interior 

to be held in trust for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. 

The proposal in S. 404 would shift the conveyance described in 

Public Law 108-67 approximately 615 feet south along the Skunk 

Harbor shoreline adjacent to Lake Tahoe. 

The Department recognizes the tribe’s interest in adjusting the 

conveyance in Public Law 108-67, but believes S. 404 will create 

additional management challenges. We would recommend working 

with the committee, the tribe, and the bill sponsors to ensure that 

the tribe’s conveyance objectives are met while mitigating the public access issues derived from the shift in the conveyance. 

S. 741 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange under such terms as the Secretary may prescribe any or all 

right title and interest of the United States in and to the following 

25 National Forest System lands and improvements located in the 

Rogue River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and Willamette National 

Forests in the State of Oregon. 

S. 741 would also correct an unanticipated problem generated 

when the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness was initially designated. 

The Department appreciates the interest and support of the committee and bill sponsors in helping us deal with our needs for facilities realignment. As the bill illustrates, the Department has a 

number of facilities and appurtenant land no longer needed by the 

agency. 

The fiscal year 2006 budget contains a proposal for legislation 

that would authorize the Secretary to sell such units excess to the 

agency’s need and to utilize the proceeds from those sales for the 

acquisition, improvement, maintenance, and disposition of administrative sites and capital improvements on National Forest System 

lands. This authority would eliminate the need to pass legislation 

for every State or forest that has these needs. 

The administration will soon forward legislative language to Congress to accomplish these worthy goals. In this context, the Department could not support S. 741 without the following modification. 

4

Under section 2(c), the Secretary is authorized to convey without 

consideration to the State of Oregon or a local government for public purposes any or all right, title, and interest of the United States 

in and to any of the land described in subsection (a). 

The Department would recommend the lands and accompanying 

buildings be offered to the State of Oregon or a local government 

at market value, and that proceeds of the conveyance be used for 

the acquisition or construction of new facilities or the reconstruction of existing facilities. This approach would then be consistent 

with the administration’s legislative proposal. 

In addition, section 329 of the Department of the Interior and 

Related Appropriations Act of 2002, as amended, established a pilot 

program authorizing the conveyance of excess Forest Service structures. The tracts identified in section 2(a)(17)-(23) have been sold 

under this authority, and we would recommend removing them 

from the bill. 

We are supportive of making the technical correction of the 

Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness as identified in S. 741. 

This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrip follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTRIP, DEPUTY CHIEF FOR NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ON S. 100, S. 404, S. 741, 

AND S. 235 AND H.R. 816

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today in order to provide the Department’s views on S. 100—

Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005, S. 235 and H.R. 816—Nevada National 

Forest Land Disposal Act of 2005, S. 404—Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California 

Land Conveyance and S. 741—Oregon National Forest Administrative Site Disposal 

Act. I am accompanied today by Greg Smith, U.S. Forest Service Director of Lands. 

S. 100—PITKIN COUNTY LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2005

S. 100 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange thirteen parcels of 

National Forest System lands (totaling 11.42 acres) and the Secretary of the Interior 

to exchange one 40 acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land for two 

parcels of non-federal land (35 acres and 18.2 acres) if Pitkin County, Colorado offers to convey title to the non-federal land that is acceptable to the Secretary of Agriculture. The lands acquired by the Secretaries would then become part of the 

White River National Forest in Colorado. The federal lands would be conveyed to 

Pitkin County, Colorado. 

The Departments would have no objection to the enactment of S. 100 if the reversionary clause in section 5(d)(1)(B) is modified. DOI would like the opportunity to 

work with the Committee and the sponsors of the bill on amendments to ensure 

that the reversionary clause is discretionary for the Secretary of the Interior to 

avoid potential liability to the Federal government. Also, the Departments would 

like the opportunity to finalize the map cited in the legislation to ensure the accuracy of the federal parcels to be transferred. 

The acquisition of the non-federal parcels would consolidate National Forest land 

ownership in and around the historic Ashcroft Townsite and on Smuggler Mountain. 

The non-federal parcels and surrounding lands are a popular sightseeing and recreation destination used for Nordic skiing and contain historic structures associated 

with the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division during World War II. 

Section 5(a)-(c) of the bill would require that the value of the federal and nonfederal lands directed to be exchanged under S. 100 be equal, with values being determined by appraisal conducted in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices and the Forest Service appraisal instructions. The bill includes 

provisions on equalizing values, if necessary. 

Section 5(d)(1)(A) of the bill requires Pitkin County to grant to an entity acceptable to the Secretary of the Interior a permanent conservation easement. The conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:36 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 109104 PO 23045 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\23045.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
5

servation easement would provide for public access on the BLM parcel conveyed to 

the County and would limit future use to recreational, fish and wildlife and open 

space purposes only. However, under section 5(b)(2) of the bill, the appraiser would 

be directed not to consider the easement in appraising this parcel. 

S. 235 AND H.R. 816—NEVADA NATIONAL FOREST LAND DISPOSAL ACT OF 2005

For ease of discussion references to S. 235 also apply to H.R. 816, unless otherwise noted. S. 235 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell seven specific 

parcels of National Forest System land in Carson City or Douglas County, Nevada 

ranging from 2.5 to 80 acres in size. Proceeds from the sales would be dispersed to 

various state and local entities, and the federal government. 

Section 3(d)(1) of the bill provides that the Secretary shall ‘‘(A) pay five percent 

to the State of Nevada for use for the general education program of the state; (B) 

pay five percent to the Carson Water Subconservancy District in the State; (C) deposit 25 percent in the fund established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly known 

as the Sisk Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a); and (D) retain and use, without further appropriation, the remaining funds for the purpose of expanding the Minden Interagency Dispatch Center in Minden, Nevada, as provided in paragraph (3).’’

Section 3(d)(2) of the bill provides that the amounts deposited in the Sisk Act 

Fund ‘‘shall be available to the Secretary until expended, without further appropriation, for the following purposes: (A) Reimbursement of costs incurred by the local 

offices of the Forest Service in carrying out land sales under this section, not to exceed 10 percent of the total proceeds of the land sales. (B) The development and 

maintenance of parks, trails, and natural areas in Carson City or Douglas County, 

(H.R. 816 also lists Washoe County, Nevada), in accordance with a cooperative 

agreement entered into with the unit of local government in which the park, trail 

or natural area is located.’’

The Department agrees these tracts of National Forest System land are difficult 

and inefficient to manage, and appropriate for conveyance. However, the Administration is concerned that the proposed use of proceeds from the sale of real property—a conversion of a capitol asset owned by the Federal taxpayer—would support 

ongoing operational expenses, including those of non-federal entities. The Department would not oppose the bill if the proceeds generated from the sale of these 

lands were used to fund critical facility maintenance and construction needs on National Forest System lands. Considering the nature of the lands proposed for sale, 

we think the use of these sale proceeds for funding facility projects is appropriate 

and would further the Forest Service’s facilities realignment objectives. The President’s FY 2006 Budget includes a more fiscally prudent proposal which would provide the Secretary with the authority to sell administrative sites, to provide more 

efficient real estate management of lands and facilities throughout the entire National Forest System. 

We would like to work with the committee and the bill’s sponsors on amendments 

regarding the distribution and use of the proceeds generated from the sales of these 

Federal parcels. 

S. 404—WASHOE TRIBE OF NEVADA AND CALIFORNIA LAND CONVEYANCE

P.L. 108-67 directed the conveyance of approximately 24 acres of NFS land to the 

Department of the Interior to be held in trust for the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and 

California. The proposal in S. 404 would shift the conveyance described in P.L. 108-

67 approximately 615 feet south along the Skunk Harbor shoreline adjacent to Lake 

Tahoe. The current conveyance includes only rocky shoreline. S. 404 would include 

approximately 300 feet of sandy beach. The conveyance of 80% of the public’s accessible sandy beach area in Skunk Harbor will limit public access to the remaining 

90 feet of sandy beach located near the historic Newhall House. This will limit the 

approximately 6,000 people who use Skunk Harbor annually to only 90 feet of public 

beach. The increased usage of the beach will subsequently increase the management 

needs for the beach area and the adjacent Newhall House. 

The Department recognizes the Tribe’s interest in adjusting the conveyance in 

P.L. 108-67 but believes S. 404 will create additional management challenges. We 

would recommend working with the Committee, the Tribe and the bill sponsors on 

amendments to ensure that the Tribe’s conveyance objectives are met while mitigating the public access issues. 

The boundary description in S. 404 legislation is not easily identified on the 

ground. In order to avoid long term survey and land ownership issues, we recommend that the Bureau of Land Management through the Bureau of Indian Affairs or a private Licensed Surveyor provide a legal description and Record of Survey once the boundary has been determined. The Department recommends making 

6

changes to the boundary tied to identifiably distinct features on the ground (e.g. 

roads). These boundary changes would insure a more effective management of the 

National Forest System lands adjacent to the lands being conveyed to the Tribe. 

It is important to note that Forest Service personnel, using geographic information system techniques, estimated the adjusted boundary described in S. 404 which 

resulted in approximately 21.6 acres being conveyed rather than the 24.3 acres as 

mentioned in S. 404 and conveyed under P.L. 108-67. This is displayed on the map 

generated for the hearing today. 

S. 741—OREGON NATIONAL FOREST ADMINISTRATIVE SITE DISPOSAL ACT

S. 741 would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange, under 

such terms as the Secretary may prescribe, any or all right, title and interest of the 

United States in and to the following 25 National Forest System lands and improvements located in the Rogue River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and Willamette National Forests in the State of Oregon. S. 741 would also correct an unanticipated 

problem generated when the Rogue-Umpqua Divide Wilderness was initially designated. 

The specific tracts listed in S. 741 are as follows: 

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

(1) The Star Gulch Complex consisting of 2.25 acres and six buildings; 

(2) The Butte Falls Housing Complex consisting of 2.5 acres and four buildings; 

(3) The Old Agnes Guard Station consisting of 2.5 acres and six buildings; 

(4) The Chetco Ranger District Housing complex consisting of 1.5 acres and 5 

buildings; 

(5) The Gold Beach House consisting of 0.25 acres and one building; 

(6) The Powers South Work Center consisting of 1.59 acres and eight buildings; 

The Siuslaw National Forest 

(7) The Gardiner Administrative Site consisting of 3.5 acres and four buildings; 

(8) The Waldport Administrative Site consisting of 6.65 acres and four buildings; 

The Umpqua National Forest 

(9) The Roseburg Service Center Administrative Site consisting of 2.92 acres and 

five buildings; 

(10) The Roseburg Powder House Administrative Site consisting of 1.34 acres; 

(11) Brown Street Residence Administrative Site consisting of 2.35 acres and 

three buildings; 

The Willamette National Forest 

(12) The Blue River Administrative Site consisting of 31.91 acres and ten buildings; 

(13) The Hemlock House consisting of 6 acres and two buildings; 

(14) The Flat Creek Administrative Site consisting of 45 acres and accompanying 

buildings; 

(15) The Rigdon Administrative Site consisting of 15 acres and accompanying 

buildings; 

(16) The Cascadia Administrative Site consisting of 15 acres and two buildings; 

(17) The Sweet Home House consisting of 0.07 acres and one building; 

(18) The Sweet Home House consisting of 1.4 acres and one building; 

(19) The Sweet Home House consisting of 0.21 acres and one building; 

(20) The Mill City House consisting of 0.30 acres and one building; 

(21) The Mill City House consisting of 0.30 acres and one building; 

(22) The Mill City House consisting of 0.30 acres and one building; 

(23) The Mill City House consisting of 0.33 acres and one building; 

(24) The Willamette National Forest Administrative Site consisting of 2.24 acres 

and five buildings; and 

(25) The West Fir residences consisting of 20 acres.

The Department appreciates the interest and support of the Committee and bill 

sponsors in helping us deal with our needs for facilities realignment. 

S. 741 authorizes the sale of the above mentioned tracts through auction or bid 

and provides for the use of brokers to facilitate the sales. In addition any appraisals 

deemed necessary by the Secretary shall conform to the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. Proceeds derived from the sales will be deposited in the fund established under Public Law 90-171 (commonly know as the Sisk 

Act; 16 U.S.C. 484a). These funds would be made available to the Secretary, without 

further appropriation, to be used for the acquisition of lands and interest in lands 

in the specified National Forests, the payment or reimbursement of costs incurred 

7

by the Forest Service in processing the conveyance and for the acquisition or construction of new facilities or the rehabilitation of existing Forest Service facilities. 

As the bill illustrates, the Department has a number of facilities and appurtenant 

land no longer needed by the agency. The FY 2006 Budget contains a proposal for 

legislation that would authorize the Secretary to sell such units excess to the agency’s need and to utilize the proceeds from those sales for the acquisition, improvement, maintenance, and disposition of administrative sites and capitol improvements on National Forest System lands. Funds deposited under this authority 

would address backlogs and administrative consolidations while improving efficiencies through the reconstruction of functionally obsolete facilities or construction 

of new facilities. This authority would eliminate the need to pass legislation for 

every State or Forest that has these needs. The Administration will forward legislative language to Congress within the next several weeks to accomplish these worthy 

goals. In this context, the Department could not support S. 741 without the following modification: 

Under Section 2(c) the Secretary is authorized to convey, without consideration, 

to the State of Oregon or a local government for public purposes any or all right, 

title and interest of the United States in and to any of the land described in subsection (a). The Department would recommend the lands and accompanying buildings be offered to the State of Oregon or a local government at market value and 

that proceeds of the conveyance be used for the acquisition or construction of new 

facilities or the reconstruction of existing facilities. This approach would then be 

consistent with the Administration’s legislative proposal. 

In addition, Section 329 of the Department of the Interior and Related Appropriations Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-63), as amended, established a pilot program authorizing the conveyance of excess Forest Service structures. The tracts identified 

in section 2(a)(17) through (23) have been sold under this authority. We would recommend removing them from the bill. 

S. 741 would make a technical correction of the Rogue Umpqua Divide Wilderness 

by slightly modifying the boundary so that (1) a road is outside the wilderness by 

removing approximately 1.3 acres from the wilderness, and (2) by adding approximately 1.3 acres of land with wilderness character to the wilderness to offset the 

removal. 

The original legal description, prepared in accordance with the map of record at 

the time of designation, inadvertently resulted in a short segment of Forest Service 

Road No. 2947-300 being within the Rogue Umpqua Divide Wilderness by approximately 20 feet. This has resulted in the closure of the road which is necessary to 

access National Forest System land beyond the area where the road is within the 

wilderness area. The small portion of land cut off by the road, which is designated 

as wilderness, clearly has no wilderness character. 

This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any questions that you 

may have.

Senator CRAIG. Joel, thank you very much. 

Now, Tom, we’ll turn to you for any additional comments you will 

make on the relevant legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. LONNIE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. LONNIE. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views 

of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 486 legislation providing 

for the exchange of public and private land in the vicinity of 

Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico. 

In previous testimony on similar legislation, H.R. 4808, given in 

the 108th Congress, we raised significant concerns, several of 

which have been addressed in H.R. 486. One concern previously 

identified in our testimony on H.R. 4808 remains outstanding, and 

we have identified new concerns described more fully in this testimony. The Department has concerns with H.R. 486 and could support the bill if our concerns are addressed. 

As an initial matter, the Department views this as a unique situation using Bureau of Land Management lands and the provisions 

8

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to resolve 

this issue involving the military’s need for private lands in Otero 

County, New Mexico. Given this, we do not expect this matter to 

serve as precedent for future BLM land exchanges. 

Approximately 241 acres of Mesa Verde Ranch, owned by Randall, Jeffrey, and Timothy Rabon are situated within the explosive 

safety zone surrounding a munitions storage area at Holloman Air 

Force Base. The safety zone for the munitions storage area was 

previously included in easements immediately adjacent to the eastern boundary of the base. But several of the safety zone easements 

have terminated. 

To secure the safety zone around the munitions storage area, 

Holloman Air Force Base considered acquiring the Rabons’ 241 

acres through acquisition, land trade, conservation easement, or 

condemnation. Acting on behalf of Holloman Air Force Base, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers offered to buy the 241 acres from 

the Rabons. However, the parties failed to reach agreement on a 

purchase price. 

On December 29, 2003, the Rabons submitted a land exchange 

proposal to the BLM under which they would convey the 241 acres 

to Holloman Air Force Base in exchange for BLM conveying to 

them certain inholdings, parcels of BLM-managed public land located within the Rabons’ ranch. On July 9, 2004, H.R. 4808 was 

introduced, which directed the exchange of the Rabons’ 241 acres 

for parcels of BLM-managed public land located within the Mesa 

Verde Ranch, the same parcels identified by the Rabons’ proposal 

to the BLM in December 29, 2003. 

At a September 14, 2004 hearing of the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, the 

BLM testified that it had significant concerns with H.R. 4808. The 

legislation was not enacted. In the meantime, the military still had 

been unable to reach agreement with the Rabons on a price at 

which Holloman Air Force Base could purchase the land. 

Under H.R. 486, the Rabons would convey to the United States 

three parcels of private land totaling approximately 241 acres contiguous to Holloman Air Force Base and located within the required safety zone for the munitions storage bunkers. H.R. 486 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Rabons approximately 320 acres of public domain land currently managed by the 

BLM in the State of New Mexico. As distinguished from the BLM 

parcels identified in H.R. 4808 in the last Congress, the 320-acre 

parcel of public land, which the Secretary is directed to convey to 

the Rabons under H.R. 486, is not located within the boundaries 

of the Mesa Verde Ranch. Rather, it is located near the southern 

portion of the city of Alamogordo, New Mexico, and has been identified for retention under BLM’s land use planning process. 

H.R. 486 directs the Secretary to carry out the exchange in a 

manner provided in section 206 of FLPMA, but waives the provision in section 206(b), which limits the amount of cash that may 

be paid to equalize exchange values of the Federal land conveyed. 

One provision of H.R. 486 remains unchanged from H.R. 4808. 

We testified as to our concern with this provision on December 14, 

2004, specifically as in H.R. 4808, H.R. 486 requires the Secretary 

of the Interior to assume administrative jurisdiction over the 241-

9

1 Holloman AFB is in south-central New Mexico, near the town of Alamogordo in Otero County. Operated by the United States Air Force, the installation covers nearly 60,000 acres. It is 

located on lands withdrawn from the public domain for military purposes under Public Land 

Order 833. 

acre parcels. As stated in our testimony, this acquired land should 

not be placed under the administrative jurisdiction of this Secretary. The Federal Government’s sole purpose in acquiring this is 

for the protection of military interest at Holloman. The acquired 

land should therefore be withdrawn to the Secretary of the Army 

under public land order 833. 

H.R. 486 directs the Secretary to carry out the exchange in a 

manner provided in 206 of FLPMA. Under 206, lands proposed for 

exchange for the U.S. Government must be of equal value with 

lands conveyed. If the lands proposed for exchange are not equal 

values, subsection (b) of section 206 provides for a cash payment 

by either the Government or the private property owner as appropriate in order to equalize values provided the payment does not 

exceed 25 percent of the total value of the lands transferred out of 

Federal ownership. 

H.R. 486 waives the 25 percent limitation in section 206(b) of 

FLPMA. The effect of this provision in H.R. 486 is that the dollar 

amount of any cash payment to equalize the values in this exchange would not be limited. This is inconsistent with section 206 

of FLPMA. 

In addition, generally an exchange proponent is responsible for 

paying appraisal costs. If the legislation requires the Government 

to pay this cost, funds should be provided for this purpose. We 

would like to work with the committee to address these concerns. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be glad 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lonnie follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. LONNIE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT

OF THE INTERIOR, ON H.R. 486

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the U.S. Department of the 

Interior on H.R. 486, legislation providing for an exchange of public and private 

land in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base1 in New Mexico. In previous testimony on similar legislation (H.R. 4808) given in the 108th Congress, we raised significant concerns, several of which have been addressed in H.R. 486. One concern 

previously identified in our testimony on H. R. 4808 remains outstanding, and we 

have identified new concerns described more fully in this testimony. The Department has significant concerns with H.R. 486 and could support the bill if our concerns are addressed. 

BACKGROUND

As an initial matter, the Department views this as a unique situation using Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands and the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-579) to resolve this issue involving the military’s need for private lands in Otero County, New Mexico. Given this, 

we do not expect this matter to serve as precedent for future BLM land exchanges. 

Approximately 241 acres of the Mesa Verde Ranch, owned by Randall, Jeffrey, 

and Timothy Rabon, are situated within the explosive safety zone surrounding a 

Munitions Storage Area at Holloman AFB. The safety zone for the Munitions Storage Area was previously included in easements immediately adjacent to the eastern 

boundary of the base, but several of the safety zone easements have terminated. To 

secure the safety zone around the Munitions Storage Area, Holloman AFB considered acquiring the Rabons’ 241 acres through acquisition, land trade, conservation 

easement, or condemnation. Acting on behalf of Holloman AFB, the U.S. Army 

10

Corps of Engineers offered to buy the 241 acres from the Rabons. However, the parties failed to reach agreement on a purchase price. 

On December 29, 2003, the Rabons submitted a land exchange proposal to the 

BLM under which they would convey the 241 acres to Holloman AFB in exchange 

for BLM conveying to them certain inholdings—parcels of BLM-managed public 

land located within the Rabons’ ranch. On July 9, 2004, H.R. 4808 was introduced, 

which directed the exchange of the Rabons’ 241 acres for parcels of BLM-managed 

public land located within the Mesa Verde Ranch (the same parcels identified in the 

Rabons’ proposal to the BLM of December 29, 2003). At a September 14, 2004, hearing of the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public 

Lands, the BLM testified that it had significant concerns with H.R. 4808. The legislation was not enacted. In the meantime, the military still has been unable to reach 

agreement with the Rabons on a price at which Holloman AFB could purchase the 

land. 

H.R. 486

Under H.R. 486, the Rabons would convey to the United States three parcels of 

private land, totaling approximately 241 acres, contiguous to Holloman AFB and located within the required safety zone surrounding munitions storage bunkers at the 

base. H.R. 486 directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to convey to the 

Rabons approximately 320 acres of public domain land currently managed by the 

BLM in the state of New Mexico. As distinguished from the BLM parcels identified 

in H.R. 4808 in the last Congress, the 320-acre parcel of public land which the Secretary is directed to convey to the Rabons under H.R. 486 is not located within the 

boundaries of the Mesa Verde Ranch; rather, it is located near the southern portion 

of the city of Alamogordo, New Mexico, and has been identified for retention under 

the BLM’s land use planning process. 

H.R. 486 directs the Secretary to carry out the exchange in the manner provided 

in section 206 [‘‘Exchanges’’] of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

(FLPMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-579), but waives the provision in section 206(b) which limits the amount of cash that may be paid to equalize exchange values of the Federal 

land conveyed. 

We commend the bill’s sponsor for addressing in H.R. 486 several of the concerns 

we previously raised in testimony on H.R. 4808. Specifically:

• In response to our concern that H.R. 4808 should specify which acres of public 

land and privately-owned lands are intended for the exchange, H.R. 486 provides a precise description of the lands to be involved in the exchange. • We asked for the opportunity to develop a map to portray accurately the exchange proposed in H.R. 4808, and to include reference to the map in the legislation. Subsequent to the September 14, 2004, hearing on H.R. 4808, the 

Rabons selected different parcels of public land they wished to acquire. The 

BLM developed a map, which is referenced in section 1(a) of H.R. 486. We note 

that the bill should be amended to reflect the name of the map as ‘‘Alamogordo 

Rabon Exchange’’. • We objected to the provision in H.R. 4808 that would have deducted the Rabons’ 

previous expenses (incurred in their response to the military’s efforts to purchase the 241 acres) from any cash equalization payment due to the Federal 

government as contrary to the public interest. This provision does not appear 

in H.R. 486. • In response to our assertion that it was important that lands involved in the 

proposed exchange be of equal value based upon appraisals prepared in accordance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition, H.R. 

486 directs the Secretary to carry out the exchange in the manner provided in 

section 206 of FLPMA. This will assure that the appraisals will comply with 

Federal appraisal standards and the U.S. Department of Justice Uniform 

Standards for Federal Land Acquisition. 

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 486

One provision in H.R. 486 remains unchanged from H.R. 4808. We testified as to 

our concern with this provision at the September 14, 2004, hearing on H.R. 4808. 

We continue to have concerns with this provision. 

Specifically, as in H.R. 4808, H.R. 486 requires the Secretary of the Interior to 

assume administrative jurisdiction over the 241-acre parcel to be conveyed by the 

Rabons. As stated in our testimony on H.R. 4808, this acquired land should not be 

placed under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. The 

Federal government’s sole purpose in acquiring this 241-acre parcel is for the protection of military interests at Holloman AFB. The acquired land should therefore be 

11

withdrawn to the Secretary of the Army for that purpose and included within existing Public Land Order 833. 

H.R. 486 directs the Secretary to carry out the land exchange in the manner provided in section 206 of FLPMA. Under section 206, lands proposed for exchange 

with the United States government must be of equal value with the lands to be conveyed out of Federal ownership. If lands proposed for an exchange are not of equal 

value, subsection (b) of section 206 provides for a cash payment to be made by either 

the government or the private-property owner, as appropriate, in order to equalize 

the values of the lands involved in the exchange, provided the payment amount does 

not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the lands transferred out of Federal ownership. 

H.R. 486 [section 1(d)(1)] waives the 25 percent limitation in section 206(b) of 

FLPMA. The effect of this provision in H.R. 486 is that the dollar amount of any 

cash payment to equalize the values in this exchange would not be limited. This is 

inconsistent with the section 206 FLPMA process. In addition, generally an exchange proponent is responsible for paying appraisal costs. If the legislation requires the government to pay this cost, funds should be provided for this purpose. 

We would like to work with the Committee to address these concerns. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 486. I would be glad to 

answer any questions.

Senator CRAIG. Tom, thank you very much for that testimony. 

I’m going to turn to my colleague, Senator Salazar, for any opening 

comments he might like to make, and then you may have questions 

you would want to ask of these gentlemen. 

A vote has just started. We can either do tandem here, I can run 

and vote, you can ask questions, I can get back and you can go, 

and we’ll keep the committee going. How’s that? 

Senator SALAZAR. That would be just fine. 

Senator CRAIG. All right. You’re in charge. 

Senator SALAZAR. Okay. You’ll be back, though? 

Senator CRAIG. I’ll be back. If you get nervous, just recess and 

I’ll be right back. 

Senator SALAZAR. You’re going to vote while you’re gone? 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR

FROM COLORADO 

Senator SALAZAR [presiding]. It’s good being chairman once in a 

while. Let me first of all just say welcome to all of you, and I appreciate the testimony on these very important pieces of legislation. 

For me, I have a particular interest in S. 100 because it involves 

Aspen and Pitkin County, and it’s been a project that has been 

near and dear to the hearts of a lot of people who have worked on 

this project now for over 10 years. And so I think the effort that 

has finally come together is one which has a tremendous amount 

of support including the support of Senator Allard and myself. And 

on behalf of Senator Allard and myself, I would like to enter our 

opening statements into the record, and since I’m the chairman I’ll 

say without objection and they will be entered into the record. 

[The prepared statements of Senators Salazar and Allard follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today on S. 100, which Senator 

Allard and I have introduced to resolve a longstanding land exchange issue near 

Aspen, Colorado. I note that both Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Congressman Scott McInnis introduced similar bills in the House and Senate last fall, but 

there was not enough time to process them. So, I am very pleased we are getting 

an early start this year. 

12

* The letters have been retained in subcommittee files. 

Mr. Chairman, S. 100 has its roots in efforts which the Forest Service, the Ryan 

family and various non-profit groups initiated in the early 1980s to acquire the 

Ryan family’s private lands in and near the well-known and historic Ashcroft townsite, some ten miles south of Aspen. The Ashcroft area is extremely rich in recreational, historic and scenic values... for example, it was the first place the famous 10th Mountain Division trained before Camp Hale was built... and both 

the Ryan family and the Forest Service agreed that it should be consolidated into 

public ownership. Accordingly, through a series of land exchanges, and a donation 

by the Ryan family, all but a 35 acre tract, currently known as the ‘‘Ryan Property’’, 

is now in Forest Service hands. 

Since the early 1990s, when the family indicated they could not donate the 35 

acre piece to the United States, the Forest Service, Pitkin County, Aspen Valley 

Land Trust (AVLT) and numerous others have attempted to secure either purchase 

money, or a land exchange, to accomplish the task. But it was to no avail. So, in 

February of 2000... more than 5 years ago... when it appeared the Ryan 

Property was in danger of imminent sale, and possible development, the Supervisor 

of the White River National Forest asked Pitkin County and the Land Trust to temporarily purchase the property, and to hold it until a land exchange was completed. 

The County and AVLT agreed, and bought the property for $3.2 million the very 

same month. 

Since the County and AVLT purchased the parcel in 2000, the promised land exchange has languished—largely because the parcels the Forest Service identified for 

exchange to the County had title or other problems which thwarted their disposal. 

There is also a BLM parcel included in the exchange, and that type of three-way 

transaction requires our approval. 

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, S. 100 directs an exchange of lands between the 

County, Forest Service and BLM. Because the Forest Service has had difficulty 

clearing title to its own land, S. 100 takes the somewhat unusual step of placing 

the title cleanup responsibility in the County’s hands. The County has generously 

agreed to do that. Our bill also insures that the United States will absolutely receive full value for all lands it conveys and, most likely, that some of the value of 

the Ryan parcel will end up being donated to the Forest Service. Lastly, it requires 

that the County place a permanent conservation easement on the BLM land it acquires, but specifies that the land be appraised without that encumbrance. So, I do 

not see how we could craft a better deal for the taxpayers. 

Finally, I note that S. 100 has overwhelming public support. Not only is it endorsed by Pitkin County, but also by the City of Aspen, Aspen Skiing Company, 

Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Aspen Historical Society, the Conservation 

Fund, Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association, Crystal-Maroon Caucus, 

the Friends of Ashcroft, Roaring Fork Conservancy, Sierra Club, Wilderness Workshop and the Wilderness Society. Indeed, in my many years of land conservation 

work in Colorado, it is hard to remember a project that has more consensus. I have 

several letters of support from the groups I just mentioned that I would like to enter 

into the record.* 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding a hearing on this important bill. I 

trust that we will be able to move it quickly through the process so that the Ryan 

Property can finally be placed in public hands, and so that Pitkin County and the 

Aspen Valley Land Trust can recover the capital they currently have tied up in the 

Ryan Property for use on other important open space acquisitions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me the opportunity to share my comments 

here today and for your leadership. You have been a strong supporter of public 

lands and I commend you for your efforts as we strive to find a balance between 

public and private ownership of our nations land. Not only do you and I share a 

border, but we share a philosophy—that the best way to govern is through sound 

policy. Today, this committee will review a bill which I view as very sound policy; 

S. 100, the Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005. 

The Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005, which I sponsored along with my 

colleague Senator Salazar, would facilitate a multiparty land exchange between the 

Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service and Pitkin County. This is a good 

common sense bill. The federal government has land that Pitkin County wants and 

Pitkin County has land that the government wants. This legislation would ease federal land management strains by exchanging outlying federal parcels for land adjaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:36 Aug 26, 2005 Jkt 109104 PO 23045 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\23045.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
13

cent to current federal land. The bill also benefits Pitkin County by providing the 

county with land they desire. This bill enjoys much local support and presents a 

win-win situation for all. 

Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that we are able to reach agreement on this bill and 

pass it favorably out of committee so that we can preserve one of the most spectacularly beautiful pieces of land in this great nation. I thank you and the Committee 

for your time and consideration.

Senator SALAZAR. Let me just say that when you think about the 

number of organizations that came together to try to work on S. 

100, it is incredible because it’s the kind of example that we ought 

to be seeing all across the West. We had the Aspen Valley Land 

Trust, who’s worked on this now for about a decade, the Aspen 

Center for Environmental Studies, the Aspen Historical Society, 

Aspen Skiing Company, the Ashcroft Ski Touring Organization, the 

Conservation Fund, the city of Aspen, Crystal River Caucus, Crystal Maroon Caucus, the Crystal River Environmental Protection 

Association, Friends of Ashcroft, Pitkin County Board of County 

Commissioners, the Roaring Fork Conservancy, the Sierra Club 

from the Roaring Fork area, Wilderness Workshop, and the Wilderness Society. 

And so I believe that S. 100 has extensive support on the part 

of everyone who knows the project. I am very supportive of the 

project and look forward to your support on the legislation. 

I have one question for you, Mr. Holtrip, and that was in the 

comments from the agency. You said you were supportive but there 

was some concern that I think you had on the reversionary provision that you wanted included in the legislation. I’d like you to 

comment on that if you would. 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Yes, that’s correct. The request is that the reversionary clause be clarified that it is discretionary for the Department of the Interior in order to provide for any concerns on down 

the road in terms of any liability for the Federal Government. 

Senator SALAZAR. Okay. And you—I expect you’ll work with your 

staffs to try to address the concerns that you’ve raised with respect 

to that clause? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Yes. And we have been working with the Department of the Interior on that, and Mr. Lonnie may have some additional thoughts on that. 

Mr. LONNIE. Yes, we’d be happy to work with the staff on that, 

Senator. 

Senator SALAZAR. Well, thank you very much. Let me ask you 

since I have you captive here and since the other pieces of legislation here are in States other than Colorado, are there other exchanges, Mr. Holtrip, that you are aware of within Colorado that 

are pending that you would like to take the opportunity to brief me 

on? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. I’m going to turn to Mr. Smith, who is our Director 

of Lands, if he’s aware of any. 

Mr. SMITH. Not at this time. I think that we have been working 

closely with all the States in the land exchanges that we have in 

Colorado, so I don’t think at this time we have anything pending. 

Senator SALAZAR. Let me ask both of you this general question, 

and that is in the whole area of land exchanges, we have done a 

lot in terms of land exchanges, I think, over the last several decades, especially in Colorado, and I would assume that’s the case in 

14

many States across the West and perhaps across the country. This 

experience that we had here with this tract in Pitkin County ended 

up taking us about 10 years to finally get done. 

Are there any general observations or recommendations that you 

might want to make to me as a member of this committee on how 

we might be able to make land exchanges go forward in a smoother 

and more quicker, perhaps more efficient manner? Or do we have 

a system that currently is working in exactly the way that it 

should be working? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Well, I think that there are—there are some concerns as to the amount of time it takes for us to go through some 

of our administrative land exchange processes. It was just a few 

weeks ago, since I’m fairly new to the position I’m in, I was talking 

to Greg about that very question, and I asked, how long do our administrative land exchange processes normally take? And I’m not 

sure that there’s a good answer that refers to a normal process. 

I think there are many exchanges that run through smoothly and 

happen in a fairly short period of time, probably measured in a few 

years. And then some of them are more complicated with more 

issues around different interests wanting to make sure that they’re 

accomplishing different things that sometimes take a considerably 

longer period of time. 

It may be that the ones that rise to the level of us at the national 

level or rise to the level of being dealt with in the committee are 

some of the more complicated ones. Again, I think that there are 

some things that we can take a look at, and to determine our administrative land exchanges taking longer than they ought to, and 

what are some of the things that we can do to fix that. 

Senator SALAZAR. In my own sense of having worked on some of 

these land exchanges in my prior role in Colorado is that if you 

have a community consensus, they’re much easier to get done. And 

often what ends up happening is you have one stakeholder or one 

group that isn’t on board. And so that requires the process sometimes to drag on for a longer period of time than it should. 

But if you would think about and maybe provide some information to me, I would appreciate it, with respect to whether or not 

in a typical—maybe it’s not the typical situation—but in a situation 

where you do have a community consensus for a particular exchange, so it’s a non-controversial exchange, is there anything that 

we could do either administratively through regulation of our public land agencies, or else through a change in the law, to try to expedite that process, I would very much appreciate that. 

Mr. HOLTRIP. We’d be happy to look into that and provide you 

some additional information such as that. And again, I would—I do 

concur that when a community has come together, as obviously 

Pitkin County and those folks around Aspen have on this particular exchange, that certainly does make the process easier and 

appreciate the amount of support for this exchange from the community and the wide array of interest groups, as you indicated in 

your statement. 

Even in that case, there are situations in which Pitkin County 

is looking for open space. And there were some aspects of the National Forest System land that was being looked at, that took some 

time as the county was trying to make sure that they were able 

15

to meet their open space requirements in looking at the National 

Forest System parcels. It was a couple of years ago when the county determined that perhaps the Federal parcel that would best 

meet their needs was the Bureau of Land Management parcel, the 

40-acre parcel. It was at that time that it became clear that our 

administrative process would not be sufficient, since there’s two different agencies involved at that point. 

Senator SALAZAR. Okay. Let me just find out what the timing is 

on the vote. I think Chairman Craig is going to come back and ask 

just a few questions. And so just to make sure that I don’t miss 

the vote, if you will just hang with us for a few minutes. We’re 

going to have the committee go into recess, but I assume that 

Chairman Craig will be right back and call the meeting back to 

order, so let’s just hang tight for a few minutes and he’ll be right 

back. Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CRAIG [presiding]. Well, thank you, gentlemen, for your 

patience. Let’s move on here. I’ve got several questions. 

Joel, this question is of you, and it relates to S. 100. I mentioned 

in my opening comments some of our frustration about the timeliness of the ability of the Forest Service to move on certain exchanges. I’m beginning to feel that the Forest Service administrative land exchange process is completely dysfunctional. It appears 

after literally years and years of effort on the part of some where 

there appears to be no difficulty or at least limited difficulty, we 

find we’re having to legislate relatively minor or sometimes quite 

small exchanges. 

Would you have your staff prepare a spreadsheet on all land exchanges over the last decade? Please rank them by the number of 

acres being exchanged and provide a column that shows how many 

years each exchange has been in the works. So starting from let’s 

say the time when the Forest Service or the private party first suggested the exchange. And finally, please show which exchanges 

were completed through the administrative process and which exchanges had to be legislated. 

I may be way out in left field, but it seems like we’re legislating 

more and more of these exchanges. We gave the Forest Service the 

authority to process these in a timely fashion. So if you could do 

that for us, I think it would be worth our time, and then working 

with you all to see how we might effectuate more streamlined processes if need be. 

Dealing with S. 235 and H.R. 816, Federal lands in Carson City 

and Douglas County, Nevada, I know the administration has expressed concern about the amount of money generated by the sale 

of some of the properties from the Southern Nevada/Clark County 

bill we passed a couple of years ago. I suspect some of these properties may also generate significant sums, those in the current legislation. 

As in the past, you have testified that the administration has 

some concerns with the receipt-sharing formula in the bill. I also 

note that the agency is suggesting in its budget request for 2006 

it be allowed to dispose of administrative sites and keep the revenues to help pay for building maintenance and construction. 

16

Tell me why we shouldn’t require the revenues from these conveyances and others that you will be proposing be counted as gross 

receipts to be shared with the counties or to help pay for the county 

payments under the Craig-Wyden School Bill. 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Well, first of all I want to be clear in saying that 

we recognize the importance of education and the school bill and 

recognize that there are—in tight fiscal times we need to look at 

a full array of funding needs. 

The administration’s 2006 budget and beyond reflects a reduction 

in the overall allocation for our facilities maintenance program. 

The Department’s 2006 Forest Service facility realignment and enhancement legislative proposal would provide for greater efficiencies in the management and realignment of administrative 

sites on the National Forest system, and receipts derived from the 

conveyance of those sites and facilities would be deposited in the 

Sisk Act Fund and remain available to the Secretary for administrative site purposes. 

If we do not receive the proceeds from the conveyance of properties such as this, our ability to acquire, to improve, to reduce the 

Forest Service’s deferred maintenance backlog would be seriously 

affected. 

Senator CRAIG. S. 404, to make a technical correction relating to 

the land conveyance authority under Public Law 108-67. I see from 

the map you have provided for the committee that the lands to be 

conveyed to the Washoe Tribe have shifted southward, and now 

much more of Forest Service 15 north 67 will fall within the conveyance. 

In the original bill, as I recall, the Forest Service retained a 

right-of-way for the road. Will you continue to retain the right-ofway on the Forest Service road 15N67? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Yes, we would. The conveyance under section 2 of 

the Public Law 108-67 was made subject to a reservation to the 

United States for non-exclusive easement for both public and administrative access. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Can you tell us why the Forest Service or 

the Washoe Tribe needs to shift the conveyance to the south? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Well, I can only speak for the Forest Service in 

saying that we support the goal of providing meaningful access to 

the area for the Washoe Tribe. We’re committed to working with 

the tribe regarding their land acquisition goals and recognize the 

shift of the conveyance to the south will pose challenges to the 

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit in managing public access. 

One of the things that happens with this shift to the south is a 

sandy beach area that is used by many members of the public, all 

but 90 feet of that would be conveyed to the Washoe Tribe, and 

that would create some public access issues. 

It’s my understanding that today the acting forest supervisor of 

the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and the Washoe Tribe are 

out on the property walking the property trying to understand each 

other’s needs and concerns on those types of access issues. 

Senator CRAIG. You mean we may have to shift the description 

a little more after today’s walk-around? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Or there may be other alternatives that will accomplish some of the access concerns. 

17

Senator CRAIG. I see. Okay. The reason I was concerned about 

right-of-way, I think it’s called the Newhall House, there’s a property, the road access house has to be gained through this conveyance. And you’re comfortable that the right-of-way you retain will 

allow that? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. That’s my understanding, yes. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. S. 741, to provide for the disposal of certain Forest Service administrative sites in Oregon and other purposes, if you were still selling timber in Oregon like you did before 

the Clinton Northwest Forest Plan was finalized, would you still 

have a need for the administrative sites that you will be disposing 

of in S. 741? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Well, you know, our past infrastructure needs were 

reflective of the access and the resource needs then. The administrative site needs of the Forest Service in Oregon have changed 

over the past decade. Each of the national forests involved, the 

Rogue River, Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umpqua, and Willamette, have determined that their administrative site needs are through—what 

those needs are through their facility master planning effort. And 

these administrative site needs are now reflective of their current 

program of work, both now and what they’re foreseeing into the future. 

Senator CRAIG. The Clinton Northwest Forest Plan was finalized, 

I believe, in 1994. Why has it taken the Forest Service a decade 

to decide to dispose of these properties? 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Well, it was in the mid-1990’s that we recognized 

the need to realign our facilities commensurate with our program 

of work. In order to make the realignment changes, we updated our 

facility master planning process, the process that we go through for 

that facility master planning, in 1995. 

It’s taken us time to standardize and implement that process 

across the entire National Forest Service system, and that process 

was finalized in 2003. Over the past several years, we have been 

using the pilot conveyance authority and other authorities available to us in order to dispose of facilities. 

For example, as my testimony indicated, seven of the tracts identified in S. 741 have already been sold under the pilot conveyance 

authority. 

Senator CRAIG. The reason, Joel, I mention this is I assume that 

in that decade of time that it took you all to create a mechanism 

and make a decision, these sites were sustained and maintained. 

Mr. HOLTRIP. To varying degrees, that’s correct. 

Senator CRAIG. Right. And that costs money. 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Yes. 

Senator CRAIG. And here today you are seeking to sell land for 

the purpose of gaining money so that you can sustain sites and sustain operations. I’m really getting quite serious about the fact that 

it takes a decade for you all to make a decision. And your inability 

to make decisions costs money. And in your role, I would hope that 

you could look at mechanisms or come to us if you’ve got impediments within the law. 

Obviously, we want property fairly handled, fair values brought, 

and all of that, but the time it takes and the money it takes to 

process these properties are sometimes more valuable than the 

18

properties themselves. And while that is probably less the case 

today than ever before, it’s still a reality, and I’m suggesting that 

time has value, except in government. 

If this were a private company making that decision in 1994, 

they would have been sold by 1996, I would guess. I know we’re 

not private companies in private business, but we ought to try to 

grasp a little of the essence of getting things done in a timely fashion when the determination is made that they’re not needed anymore. I grow very frustrated by those kinds of processes. 

Mr. HOLTRIP. Could I just say that I agree? I know that our chief 

also agrees with concerns over how long it sometimes takes for us 

to go through some of these types of processes. Referring back to 

your request on the administrative land exchanges, as another one 

of those examples that you’re talking about, I believe that we’ll be 

more than happy to provide the——

Senator CRAIG. Well, I think it will give us a good perspective. 

Mr. HOLTRIP [continuing]. Information that you’re providing. And 

it’s our intention of looking at that, because we are aware of the 

perception that our administrative land exchanges sometimes take 

longer than we want them to. And we believe that providing you 

that information will also provide us the opportunity to look at 

what are some of the things that we need to do. 

Senator CRAIG. Super. Thank you very much. Tom, thank you for 

your testimony. S. 761, to rename to Snake River Birds of Prey 

Area to the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National 

Conservation Area in honor of Morley is of great value to the State 

of Idaho—and we believe to the Nation—as it relates to recognizing 

Mr. Nelson. 

I assume that when this legislation is signed—well, first of all, 

I know you chose not to comment about it. So I have to assume 

that when this legislation is signed into law, the BLM will schedule 

a renaming ceremony at the conservation area to celebrate Morley’s 

accomplishments. Can I count on that? 

Mr. LONNIE. You can absolutely count on it, Mr. Senator. We’d 

be delighted to do that. 

Senator CRAIG. Great. Thank you very much. H.R. 486, to provide a land exchange involving private land, the Bureau of Land 

Management, in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base, New 

Mexico, for the purpose of removing private land from the required 

safety zone surrounding munitions storage bunkers at Holloman 

Air Force Base. I spent a little more time looking at this because 

I can’t quite figure out what this is all about. 

I’m wondering why the BLM has to foot the bill for this exchange 

given that Holloman Air Force Base and the private landowner 

seem to be the ones that benefit from the exchange. Would you object if we force the Department of Defense and the private land 

owner to pay for the cost of the exchange? 

Mr. LONNIE. As we testified, Senator, generally the proponent of 

a land exchange is responsible for paying for the appraisal costs. 

In H.R. 486, BLM-managed lands are offered as a solution to a 

problem between Holloman Air Force Base and the Rabons. The 

public interest would be served if your suggestion is adopted. 

Senator CRAIG. Help me understand why the Federal Government is giving up 320 acres in exchange for only 241 acres. 

19

Mr. LONNIE. We testified that the provision in H.R. 486 waiving 

the 25 percent limitation on cash equalization payments is inconsistent with section 206 process in FLPMA. Senator, when we previously had testified on S. 4808, one of the things that we had identified, and we applaud the sponsor for incorporating it here, is its 

use of the section 206 process, because that will assure that we use 

uniform appraisal standards, so equal value and fair market value 

will be captured. But we do have concerns associated with the 

waiving of the 25 percent equalization payment money. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. I also note that several southeastern New 

Mexico environmental groups claim the BLM determined that the 

BLM land in question was needed for the protection of the Sacramento Mountain prickly poppy, a Federal endangered species 

contained within the boundaries of the adjoining Sacramento Escarpment area of critical environmental concern. To your knowledge, does the Sacramento Mountain prickly poppy occur on the 

BLM lands to be traded in this exchange? 

Mr. LONNIE. No, they do not. The special status species occurs 

within the ACEC—area of critical environmental concern—but not 

within the 320-acre parcel located outside the ACEC. 

Senator CRAIG. Did the agency determine that these 320 acres of 

the BLM land were needed for the protection of the poppy? 

Mr. LONNIE. No, there were—there are no large-scale permitted 

uses in the 320-acre parcel, but a variety of casual and day-use activities occur. The 320-acre parcel serves to absorb land use impacts from casual and day-use activities so that these uses do not 

disturb special status plant and animal species in the neighboring 

ACEC. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, my last thought here in looking at the map, 

and that’s all I know about this, is that by just looking at the map, 

it appears that the lands the Government is giving up should be 

more valuable than what they are getting. I think you’ve commented on that as it relates to the appraisal process. Do you have 

any additional comment or care to comment on it? 

Mr. LONNIE. Not at this time, Senator, but we would be more 

than happy to work with the sponsor and the committee on any 

changes that we suggested in our testimony. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, gentlemen, thank you very much. 

We’ve gotten you out of here slightly before 3 o’clock. Joel, I think 

you had a commitment that was going to cause you to exit at least 

by then. We appreciate your attentiveness to these issues, and we’ll 

be back to you for any corrections we feel are necessary in working 

with you to move these pieces of legislation forward. 

Thank you very much, and the subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[The following statement was received for the record:]

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER KRUPP, STAFF ATTORNEY, THE WESTERN LAND

EXCHANGE PROJECT, SEATTLE, WA 

TESTIMONY REGARDING H.R. 486

My name is Christopher Krupp, and I am the staff attorney of the Western Land 

Exchange Project, a non-profit organization monitoring federal land sales and exchanges and working for long-term substantive reform in federal land disposal policy. I submit this testimony to urge you to oppose H.R. 486, a bill to provide for 

20

a land exchange involving private land and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

land in the vicinity of Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. 

H.R. 486 circumvents two of our nation’s important environmental and public 

lands laws, namely the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Federal 

Lands Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). NEPA would normally require the Bureau of Land Management to study the environmental impacts of the proposed land 

exchange, develop a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposal, and provide 

the public with one or more opportunities to comment on the proposal. There are 

very good reasons why implementing each of those NEPA elements would benefit 

the land trade proposal in H.R. 486. First, studying the environmental impacts 

would help determine the potential harm of trading away 320 acres of buffer zone 

that protects the Sacramento Mountains prickly poppy, a species in documented decline and known only to exist in Otero County, New Mexico. Second, by developing 

a reasonable range of alternatives, the BLM may well identify means of acquiring 

the private land adjacent to the Air Force base without the public giving up the 

buffer lands identified for trade in the bill. Finally, the public comment requirements in NEPA ensure that the public has an opportunity to weigh in on the proposal after it has learned of the impacts and alternatives. This is usually not possible with legislated land exchanges because such detailed information cannot be 

provided in the text of land exchange bills. 

H.R. 486 averts the FLPMA mandate that the difference in the appraised value 

of federal and non-federal lands in a land exchange not exceed 25 percent, with the 

difference to be paid in cash. H.R. 486 specifically exempts the land trade from this 

requirement, so if the federal land has an appraised value twice that of the private 

land adjacent to Holloman AFB, the private landowner can simply pay the difference in cash rather than accepting a smaller amount of BLM land. There is no 

valid reason for this exemption from FLPMA; it simply guarantees the private party 

that it can acquire all the land it is seeking, whatever the ultimate appraised values. 

FLPMA also requires that all BLM proposals conform to the agency’s relevant Resource Management Plan (RMP). Prior to H.R. 486’s introduction, BLM, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), determined that the 320 acres 

of federal land must be retained in public ownership because of the land’s importance in protecting the prickly poppy on adjacent public land. The BLM would therefore not make the trade identified in this bill, because it would violate the RMP covering the land at issue. H.R. 486 circumvents the agencies’ informed decision regarding this land in order to reward a single constituent. 

It is important to note that the eminent domain/condemnation proceedings that 

were first considered to acquire the private lands for the Holloman safety zone 

would justly compensate the private party. In fact, the private lands would be appraised for the same market value under condemnation proceedings or H.R. 486. 

The only notable difference is that condemnation proceedings would not provide a 

way for the private party to acquire land that the BLM and FWS believe serves an 

important public function. After condemnation proceedings the private party would, 

of course, be able to acquire other public land in the area that the BLM has identified for disposal in the relevant RMP. 

In summary, I urge the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests to oppose H.R. 

486. The bill circumvents longstanding law enacted to inform the public and protect 

the public interest, and trades away land that the BLM has determined is essential 

for protecting a plant found in only one county in the United States. A better solution to the safety zone problem at Holloman is for the Department of Defense to 

acquire the private land by the usual condemnation/eminent domain proceedings. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

(21)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, June 20, 2005. 

Hon. LARRY E. CRAIG, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau of Land 

Management to questions submitted following the May 11, 2005, hearing on S. 100, 

the Pitkin County Land Exchange Act of 2005, and H.R. 486, land exchange near 

Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the Subcommittee. Sincerely, 

Sincerely, 

JANE M. LYDER, 

Legislative Counsel. 

[Enclosure.] 

SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS

S. 100—THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND EXCHANGE ACT OF 2005

Question 1. Please provide as estimate of the value of the parcel of BLM land to 

be exchanged pursuant to S. 100. 

Answer. The BLM has not undertaken an appraisal of the parcel identified for exchange in S. 100. In addition, we do not have appraisals on any comparable parcels 

in the area. However, a very rough estimate of the value of the 40-acre parcel would 

be between $500,000 and $1,500,000. 

H.R. 486—LAND EXCHANGE NEAR HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO

Question 1. As you noted in your testimony, the BLM lands to be exchanged are 

designated for retention. At the subcommittee hearing you testified that the BLM 

could support the exchange, although you did not recommend alternate lands or ask 

for any special restrictions on the lands to be exchanged. Has the BLM’s position 

changed on the value of retaining the lands to be exchanged under this bill? 

Answer. The BLM’s position on the value of retaining the 320-acre parcel identified in H.R. 486 has not changed; the parcel is identified for retention in the BLM’s 

‘‘Otero County Areas of Critical Environmental Concern/White Sands Resource Management Plan Amendment,’’ (RMPA) of December 19, 1997. 

This dispute is between the Rabons and the military. While we believe that the 

public interest would be better served if the Rabons and the military were able to 

agree on a price at which the military could purchase the 241 acres from the 

Rabons, the BLM could support the use of public lands as a means to resolve this 

dispute, provided the BLM is reimbursed for all its costs associated with this exchange. 

The BLM supports land exchanges of equal value, and the Rabons’ initial land 

exchange proposal of December 23, 2003, (rangeland for rangeland) appeared to 

meet this standard. However, in September of 2004, Representative Pearce indicated to the Department that the Rabons were no longer interested in acquiring the 

inholdings identified in their proposal, but instead would convey their 241 acres to 

the military in exchange for acquiring a 320-acre parcel of public land located adjacent to the Sacramento Escarpment ACEC. These are the lands identified in H.R. 

486. 

22

Thus, the exchange was transformed from one of approximately equal land values 

to one with significantly disparate land values. Our position on H.R. 486, that we 

could support the proposed exchange if amendments were adopted, reflects our intent that the public receive full value for the 320-acre parcel and the BLM is reimbursed for costs if Congress directs that this parcel be conveyed into private ownership. 

Question 2. Your testimony references an earlier proposal to exchange the lands 

for ‘‘BLM inholdings’’ on the Rabon ranch. Were those lands designated for disposal? 

Would the BLM support an exchange for those lands? If both parties were to agree 

to that exchange, could it be handled administratively without any Congressional 

intervention? 

Answer. The BLM inholdings on the Rabons’ ranch were identified for disposal 

in the BLM’s 1986 White Sands Resource Management Plan (the disposal designation was not affected by the 1997 RMPA). 

The BLM could support an exchange of these lands as part of a comprehensive 

solution, described in more detail below, involving the Rabons and the Corps (or 

other Defense Department entity acting on behalf of Holloman AFB). Such a comprehensive solution could be handled administratively without congressional intervention, and might be structured as follows:

Part 1: Land Exchange between the Rabons and the BLM under Sec. 206 of 

FLPMA. The BLM’s authorization to do land exchanges is provided in Section 206 

of FLPMA. The Rabons convey their 241 acres to the BLM, in exchange for BLM 

lands of equal value selected from the ‘‘inholdings’’ that were identified by the 

Rabons in their December 2003 proposal and reflected in H.R. 4808 as introduced. 

Part 2: DOD withdrawal application under Sec. 204(a) of FLPMA. The Corps (or 

other Defense Department entity acting on behalf of Holloman AFB) files with the 

Secretary of the Interior an application to withdraw the 241 acres of newly acquired 

federal land for the exclusive use of Holloman AFB.

Question 3. You mentioned in your testimony that the private lands covered by 

the bill were formerly under a restrictive easement. Please provide the Committee 

with the history of those easements, their current status (including why they are 

no longer in effect), and the current status of any neighboring lands and whether 

they currently have or may require easements in place. 

Answer. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, on behalf of Holloman AFB, maintains the full record of easements associated with the installation. However, our 

records show that no restrictive easements currently exist for the 241 acres. 

Question 4. In November, 2003, the Department of the Interior testified before the 

Committee in favor of a bill (S. 1209 in the 108th Congress) to authorize a legislative taking of certain lands in Washington County, Utah. Under that legislation, the 

value of the lands acquired by the United States would be determined by a Federal 

court. Would the Department similarly favor such a solution in this case? Do you 

have any information that would guide the Committee as to the likely value of the 

Rabon lands? 

Answer. If legislation providing for a legislative taking of the 241 acres of private 

land located within the munitions storage security zone at Holloman AFB were introduced, the Department of the Interior would defer to the Department of Defense 

concerning a position on such a bill. Such a solution would return resolution of this 

issue to the two principal parties: the Rabons and the military. 

The BLM was not a party to the efforts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

on behalf of Holloman AFB, to acquire the 241 acres from the Rabons. However, 

it is our understanding that the Corps prepared an appraisal of the 241 acres. On 

August 3, 1999, the Corps sent the Rabons a letter offering $20,000 to purchase a 

restrictive easement; the Rabons rejected this offer. 

Question 5. Your testimony referred to the Department of the Interior’s significant 

concerns with prior legislation concerning this issue (H.R. 4808 in the 108th Congress). Did the Department have any concern with the specific lands to be exchanged under that bill? What would the Department’s position be if H.R. 486 is 

amended to authorize the exchange of lands identified in H.R. 4808? 

Answer. Our concern with the specific lands identified for exchange in H.R. 4808 

as introduced on July 9, 2004, was that the lands to be exchanged be of equal value 

or that the bill allow for an equal value exchange. The Department would support 

an amendment to H.R. 486 which provided for a legislated exchange of lands as 

identified in H.R. 4808. Such an amendment would greatly reduce, although not 

eliminate, the disparity in values of the lands to be exchanged. We urge the Committee to provide for equal values in a legislated land exchange, for example, by reducing the number of acres the BLM is to convey to the Rabons until the land values are equalized. Alternatively, if Congress directs the BLM to sell to the Rabons 

23

the lands identified in H.R. 4808 as introduced, we believe the public should receive 

fair market value and the BLM be reimbursed for its costs associated with the sale. 

Question 6. If H.R. 486 is enacted without amendment, how would the BLM manage the parcel it would acquire? 

Answer. The 241 acres were identified by Holloman AFB as essential to its munitions storage security zone. The land would be acquired by the Federal government 

for that purpose. As such, the acquired land would not be available for multiple use 

management under Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The Secretary of the 

Interior would issue a Public Land Order withdrawing the acquired land and adding 

it to the military lands withdrawn under Public Land Order Number 833. 

Question 7. You expressed concern with the provision of the bill that waives the 

25 percent limitation in section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA); if that provision were removed, how would the exchange be 

completed, assuming the values of the two parcels differ by more than 25 percent? 

Answer. If H.R. 486 were amended to eliminate the waiver of Section 206(b) of 

FLPMA, the exchange would proceed in accordance with Section 206 of FLPMA. 

Specifically, an appraiser would prepare a preliminary estimate of the values of the 

Rabons’ 241 acres and the 320-acre parcel of public land in order to determine a 

gross estimate of the disparity in values. Based on this preliminary estimate, the 

number of acres of public land to be conveyed out of Federal ownership would be 

adjusted (reduced) to the point that the land values are approximately equal. A final 

appraisal would be prepared on the adjusted acreage. 

QUESTION FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. I would like to follow up on previous questions I submitted concerning 

the proposed land exchange near Holloman Air Force Base. To better understand 

the history of the land exchange proposed in H.R. 486, I would like you to include 

in your response any information (such as correspondence among the parties, any 

valuations of the various lands considered, or information on alternative proposals 

considered) that may give further explanation of your answers. Since the Army 

Corps of Engineers was the original negotiator tasked with resolving the safety zone 

issue, please also provide any documentation you may have related to their efforts 

to arrive at a solution. 

Answer. The informated requested in the above question has been retained in 

subcommittee files.

Æ