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

26–821 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–347

SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES; CONVEYANCE OF LAND

TO COFFMAN COVE, AK; AMEND PUBLIC LAW 97-435;

LAND EXCHANGE IN LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST; AND

CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN CLARK COUNTY, NV

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. 405 S. 1522

S. 1541 S. 1548

H.R. 482

NOVEMBER 2, 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

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii ............................................. 2

Berkley, Hon. Shelley, U.S. Representative From Nevada .................................. 23

Cameron, Scott J., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance, Accountability, and Human Resources, National Forest System, Forest Service, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 3,12

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator From Washington ....................................... 20

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

Manning, Gloria, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest 

Service, Department of the Interior ................................................................... 14

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 22

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, U.S. Representative From Texas ............................... 22

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada ...................................................... 21

Walker, Randall H., Director of Aviation, Clark County, Nevada ....................... 23

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 27

(1)

SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES; CONVEYANCE 

OF LAND TO COFFMAN COVE, AK; AMEND 

PUBLIC LAW 97-435; LAND EXCHANGE IN 

LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST; AND CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN CLARK COUNTY, NV 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2005

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room SD–

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry Craig presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Good afternoon, everyone. I’d like to thank you 

all for attending and my apologies for running a few moments late. 

To be honest I lost track of time. I’m sorry. 

Let me first welcome our witnesses. I would like to welcome Gloria Manning, Associate Deputy Chief for our National Forest System, from the U.S. Forest Service, and Scott Cameron—Scott, good 

to see you—Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance Accountability and Human Resources, from the Department of the Interior. 

We thank you for coming to testify on the bills that are before 

this committee. We will be taking testimony on S. 405, a bill introduced by Senators Reid and Ensign to provide for the conveyance 

of certain public lands in Clark County, Nevada, for use as a heliport; S. 1541, a bill introduced by our colleague, who is here, Senator Danny Akaka, to provide, conserve and restore public lands, 

administered by the Department of the Interior or the Forest Service, and adjacent lands through cooperative cost share grants to 

control and mitigate the spread of invasive species and for other 

purposes; S. 1548, a bill introduced by Senator Murkowski to provide for the conveyance of certain Forest Service lands in the city 

of Coffman Cove, Alaska; S. 1552, a bill introduced by Senator 

Cantwell to amend Public Law 97-435 to extend the authorization 

for the Secretary of the Interior to release certain conditions contained in a patent concerning certain lands conveyances by the 

United States to Eastern Washington University until December 

31, 2009; and last, H.R. 482, a bill introduced by Representative 

Neugebauer to provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands 

in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New Mexico, and for 

other purposes. But before we get to our witnesses I’d like to turn 

2

to Senator Akaka for opening statements he would like to make. 

None of the rest of our colleagues are here, so Danny, let me turn 

to you before we take testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR

FROM HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I love to work with you, and here we go again on this one. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing, which includes my 

invasive species bill, which is S. 1541, the Public Lands Conservation and Protection Act. Its acronym is PLPCA, so if you don’t mind 

I’ll just call it the ‘‘invasives bill.’’

Mr. Chairman, I know that you and I share a mutual interest 

in this topic because of your strong leadership on the weed bill, of 

which I was a co-sponsor. Invasive species can be economically devastating on grazing lands and in forest and timber areas. So I was 

very pleased when the weed bill was enacted in 2004, thanks to the 

chairman. 

Public lands are under significant threat from invasive species of 

all types. This bill provides a framework for helping States, and 

local groups in partnership with the Federal Government, to address the serious economic and native habitat threats from a broad 

range of terrestrial invasive species such as amphibians, insects, 

reptiles and subterrestrial animals, such as nematodes. 

My invasive bill, S. 1541, authorizes the major Federal land 

management agencies to undertake a competitive grants program 

to assist States, counties, non-profits and private landowners in 

partnership with the Federal Government to conduct assessments, 

control projects and rapid response eradication projects for invasive 

species. There are grants for three types of activities: voluntary 

State assessment of needs, if States have not already conducted 

such assessments; grants for results-oriented control projects to 

contain or eradicate invasives; and grants that are expedited for 

rapid response when a new species invades a State. 

My State of Hawaii has been consistent in its message that rapid 

response is necessary to help it combat new invasive species. The 

National Park Subcommittee held a field hearing on invasive species in and around national parks at Hawaii Volcanoes National 

Park in August. The message came through very clearly that there 

are enormous needs and challenges to control invasive species in 

and around national park lands. The Hawaii county-level invasive 

species councils testified that partnerships are the key to bridging 

jurisdictional and resource gaps. Partnerships help tap the collective knowledge of local scientists and focus problem-solving on the 

most pressing invasive species issues. 

They also help generate and leverage funding to get workers on 

the ground when Federal agencies are unable to take direct action. 

In addition, partnerships can help to protect public lands from invasions of exotic species as they approach the boundaries of national forests, parks and grazing lands. 

The field hearing made it clear that we must do more at the national level, both in terms of new authorizing legislation and increased appropriations, to allow the Federal Government to be a 

3

better partner with States and non-profit entities if we are to make 

a difference on this issue. 

The invasive species bill is supported by the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species. They have submitted testimony for the record. It is also supported by the Hawaii Department 

of Land and National Resources and the Department of Forestry 

and Wildlife, which supports the statewide Hawaii Invasive Species 

Council. 

The Council was created in 2003 by the Hawaii State legislature 

to provide cabinet-level leadership for the fight against invasives. 

The Governor subsequently committed $4 million in new State 

funding to improve programs targeting invasive species. 

Our Federal lands in Hawaii benefit from the increased support 

to fight invasives, but more needs to be done by Federal agencies 

and through partnerships. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our distinguished panel of witnesses today and comments they have on the 

bill. 

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I must leave for another meeting, 

but I look forward to working with you and with the Department 

of the Interior and the Forest Service on addressing the challenges 

of invasive species across the Nation. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Senator Akaka, we can ask Scott Cameron to go 

first and give testimony on your legislation, if you wish to stay and 

ask any questions following that, and then we can proceed with the 

rest. All right? Let us do that. 

Let me introduce, once again, Scott Cameron, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Performance, Accountability and Human Resources, 

Department of the Interior. 

Scott, if in your testimony you would speak specifically—well, 

you can go through them all, but specifically to S. 1541. Then we 

can get back to the Senator before he leaves. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT J. CAMERON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND 

HUMAN RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman 

and Senator Akaka. Let me start off by congratulating you both on 

your leadership on what I know Secretary Norton considers to be 

an extremely important issue, invasive species. 

There are some estimates that half of our endangered species are 

there, at least in part because invasive species are eating them or 

encroaching on their habitat or otherwise causing problems. 

Invasive species cause a wide variety of environmental and economic problems, whether they are invasive animals, plants, or potentially, microorganisms as well. 

So congratulations and our thanks to both of you for putting a 

lot of your personal effort into this topic. 

Mr. Chairman, I am Scott Cameron, Deputy Assistant Secretary 

for Performance, Accountability and Human Resources at the Department of the Interior and I am pleased to be able to testify on 

S. 1541, the Public Lands Protection and Conservation Act of 2005. 

We recognize that invasive species are a significant natural reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:24 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109347 PO 26821 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\26821.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
4

source management challenge on Departmental lands—indeed, all 

lands across the country. These species don’t pay attention to 

boundary lines at all and therefore, we need to take a landscape 

approach, rather than an organization unit by organization unit 

approach, in dealing with them. 

We appreciate the continued interest and commitment of this 

community and Senator Akaka, in particular, in addressing the increasing threat of invasive species on native species and their habitats. The Department whole-heartedly, very strongly concurs with 

the principles embodies in this legislation, but we actually believe 

that the goals of the legislation can largely be met with existing 

authorities. 

There are three or four points that I would like to make in my 

oral testimony that are arduously covered in the written testimony. 

I assume the written testimony will be incorporated into the 

record. 

Senator CRAIG. Both of your full statements and testimony will 

be a part of the record. Thank You. 

Mr. CAMERON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The first 

point I’d like to make is, with the exception of one of Interior’s bureaus, all of our bureaus right now have the legal authority to work 

with partners, whether they are private landowners or local governments or State governments or non-profit groups outside their 

borders. The one bureau that does not have that authority is our 

National Park Service. Senator Akaka and his colleague, Senator 

Wyden, introduced S. 1288, not too many months ago, that would 

fix that problem. That would give the National Park Service authority to work with its neighbors to deal with invasive species 

problems. And it’s worth noting that this current liability on the 

part of the Park Service is not something that is specific to Hawaii 

or Oregon. 

I was at a meeting in Albuquerque in 2004 to talk about 

Tamarisk (salt cedar), which is a very significant problem in the 

West, and the Executive Director of the New Mexico Association of 

Conservation Districts, Debbie Hughes, came up to me and said, 

‘‘Gosh, I wish we had the authority to work with the Parks Service 

off of their lands. There are a lot of good things we could do together, but the Park Service can’t partner with us right now.’’ So, 

I am hoping that Debbie will have some conversations with Senator 

Bingaman and Senator Domenici before the committee has an opportunity to consider S. 1288. 

But clearly, this committee’s movement on S. 1288 would be very 

useful. The administration, subsequent to the introduction of that 

bill, sends up its own legislation, coincidentally. It’s very, very 

similar. So, we might want to work with the committee to tweak 

S. 1288 a little bit around the edges, but fundamentally, it would 

be great if that bill could move. 

The second point I’d like to make is I agree whole-heartedly with 

Senator Akaka’s observations about rapid response and early detection. As Senator Craig knows very well, it’s really easy to get rid 

of a new weed in Idaho, that’s occupying 100 acres of land. Ones 

that occupies 10,000 acres of land or 100,000 acres of land, you’ve 

got a very different proposition on your hands. I have recently 

asked the U.S. Geological Survey to work with our colleague agenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:24 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109347 PO 26821 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\26821.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
5

cies in the National Invasive Species Council to organize a meeting 

next spring on early detection and rapid response. One of the problems that we have is, while we may have the authority to do early 

detection and rapid response, we don’t necessarily have the research, the mechanisms, the systems in place to figure out where 

the problem has just popped up in time to do something about it. 

So, this meeting next April—and I would certainly welcome any 

participation by committee staff. In this meeting, we would explore 

how we could really work with NGO’s, work with the State universities, work with the State governments and really craft a National 

Early Detection and Rapid Response System. What pieces exist 

now? What pieces are missing? What are the priority pieces to 

build? And it may well be that there are some legislative-related 

outcomes from that conference that this committee might want to 

explore. 

The last point I want to make on S. 1541 is that it addresses the 

fact that the administration for 2 years now has done, through the 

National Invasive Species Council, an interagency performance 

budget cross-cut. We’re grateful that the sponsors of the bill have 

acknowledged that effort. I would anticipate, since the administration has done this for 2 years in a row, that we are likely to continue pursuing interagency performance budget cross-cut in fiscal 

year 2007. Assuming my assumption is correct, I’d like to respectively suggest that perhaps the most effective thing this committee 

could do to promote and enhance the value of that cross-cut might 

be as part of its own fiscal year 2007 budget oversight process, to 

perhaps have an oversight hearing on the interagency performance 

budget cross-cut on invasive species. No congressional subcommittee or committee has ever done that in the past, and frankly, nothing focuses the mind of bureaucrats like the prospects of a 

congressional oversight hearing. And it would be helpful to us in 

the political leadership of the administration to be able to signal 

to our co-workers that the Congress cares enough about this topic 

to actually have an oversight hearing on this invasive species crosscut. So, I wanted to throw that idea out for the committee. 

That’s all I had to say in my oral testimony on S. 1541. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cameron follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT CAMERON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR, ON S. 1541

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Scott Cameron, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance, Accountability, and Human Resources, U.S. Department of the Interior. I want to thank you for providing the Department of the 

Interior the opportunity to testify before you regarding S. 1541, the ‘‘Public Lands 

Protection and Conservation Act of 2005.’’ We recognize that invasive species are a 

significant natural resource management challenge on Departmental lands, and particularly in island ecosystems like Hawaii. We appreciate the continued interest and 

commitment of this Committee, and Senator Akaka in particular, in addressing the 

increasing threat of invasive species on native species and their habitats. The Department concurs with the principles embodied in the legislation, but we believe 

that the goals of the legislation can be met within existing authorities. 

Let me begin by providing you with some background on this issue, followed by 

brief comments on the legislation. 

6

PROGRAMS PROMOTING PARTNERSHIPS

Over the past 75 years, we have worked extensively with our partners in states, 

tribes, with sportsmen, ranchers, and farmers, as well as with our colleagues at the 

Department of Agriculture, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental 

Protection Agency to provide technical assistance and grants to help states and private landowners, among others, achieve their land management and conservation 

goals, while providing benefits for migratory birds, fish, and other species. 

On a day-to-day basis, we work closely with nongovernmental organizations and 

private landowners to improve efforts for cooperative weed management in the 

West, water management districts in Florida, and small landowners everywhere 

who want to restore habitat for fish and wildlife. For example, the Olaa Kilauea 

Partnership on the island of Hawaii is a cooperative land management effort involving State and federal entities and willing private landowners with the goals of enhancing the long-term survival of native ecosystems and managing 420,000 acres 

across multiple ownership boundaries. Management and research of this partnership are currently focused on removing or reducing impacts from feral animals such 

as pigs, invasive plants and non-native predators, restoring native habitat and endangered species, and providing education and work training in fencing, native 

plant horticulture and other conservation work to Kulani Correctional Facility inmates. In addition to the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

and the U.S. Geological Survey within the Department, other partners include the 

Puu Makaala Natural Area Reserve, the Kamehameha Schools, the USDA Forest 

Service, and the Nature Conservancy. The partnership has jointly fenced 14,100 

acres on State and private lands and eliminated the feral pig population from 9,800 

acres, while controlling feral pigs in an additional 4,300 acres. 

There are also a large number of grant programs administered by the Department 

that could be potential tools for addressing invasive species. 

The Department’s support of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s ‘‘Pulling 

Together Initiative’’ and other programs also provides matching funds for invasive 

species management, leveraging funds from other Invasive Species Council member 

agencies and non-federal partners. The cooperative conservation component of the 

challenge cost share programs in the Bureau of Land Management, NPS, and FWS 

also emphasize building partnerships for the conservation of natural resources and 

provide expanded opportunities for land managers to work with landowners and 

others to form creative conservation partnerships. 

Through the Secretary’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative, bureau matching 

funds are made available to landowners and other cooperators at state, tribal, and 

local levels. Through partnerships built by programs in this initiative, the Department’s land managers can work with landowners and other citizen stewards to tackle invasive species, reduce erosion along stream banks, or enhance habitat for 

threatened and endangered species. Among other things, in fiscal year 2005 we have 

funded through this initiative projects that are aimed at the eradication and control 

of tamarisk, Russian olive, and other invasive plants, and reclamation of impacted 

lands. Some of these projects, such as the Moab Partners for Restoration, target 

community and youth projects. 

Our State and Tribal Wildlife Grants programs are designed to provide financial 

assistance for development and implementation of state-or tribally-directed programs and individual projects that address the needs of the species and habitats 

most in need of conservation, address the species conservation needs that are most 

in need of funding, and leverage federal funding through cost-sharing provisions. 

These programs exemplify our cooperative conservation approach by helping states 

tailor conservation efforts so that they best fit local conditions, and provides yet another tool for states to use to address the significant impacts of invasive species on 

native habitats. 

FWS’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife, which promotes private landowner costshare projects for habitat restoration, includes funds targeted for control of invasive 

plants and subsequent restoration. The Partners Program has worked with private 

landowners across the Nation to remove, burn, biologically control, and otherwise 

combat invasive plants on thousands of acres of wetlands and upland. This control 

and management of invasive plants is also part of BLM’s Partners Against Weeds 

Strategy Plan, BLM’s Strategic Plan, and the National Fire Plan. The Partners 

Against Weeds program funds cooperative efforts with landowners to control 

invasive species and cooperative outreach and education projects with schools and 

local and county governments. 

Departmental bureaus also partner with other federal and non-federal entities on 

research projects. The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Reclamation 

partner with the Agriculture Research Service and the U.S. Forest Service, both 

7

within the Department of Agriculture, and university scientists to develop and test 

biological control agents, to conduct studies of stream flow management for vegetation control, and on studies of hybridization to better predict the potential future 

spread of invasive species. The USGS also has partnerships with state and county 

weed departments, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others 

aimed at mapping currently invaded sites and identifying new invasions. 

Finally, the BOR leads, along with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, the 

Saltcedar Biological Control Consortium, a task force comprised of over 40 agencies, 

and BOR, in collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory, also develops new 

technologies for determining the amount of water lost from the Rio Grande River 

due to tamarisk and for restoration potential based upon soil salinity and chemical 

composition. 

As you can see, cooperative conservation through the use of partnerships and 

challenge cost-share funding has long been a hallmark of the Department’s approach to invasive species control and management. 

CROSSCUT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

The Administration is also working toward an interagency approach to invasive 

species control and since the 2005 budget has presented a unified invasive species 

performance-based crosscut budget through the National Invasive Species Council. 

Through this interagency effort, Council agencies work together to develop common 

goals, strategies, and performance measures. Under this performance umbrella, new 

and base funds will be applied to early detection and rapid response as well as control and management focused geographically (Florida, for example) and by species 

(Emerald ash borer and tamarisk, for example). 

While we have made significant strides, we do continue to have challenges in coordinating budget decisions across departments. However, we continue to improve 

this important management tool. 

In 2006, the Department will focus invasives work on three priority geo-regional 

areas that also contain an abundance of invasives targeted by National Invasive 

Species Council priorities. The bureaus submitted coordinated, joint budget requests 

for each of these areas, developed in each case by an inter-bureau team. Increases 

totaling $2.3 million are proposed for the three areas, and base funding will also 

be redirected to the coordinated efforts. 

DEPARTMENTAL VIEWS ON S. 1541

With the above discussion in mind, let me turn to S. 1541. Generally, the ‘‘Public 

Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005’’ would establish grant programs to 

states to assist in the management of invasive species and would create a rapid response component allowing states to request assistance. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the National Invasive Species Council, is 

to carry out a comprehensive budget analysis and summary of Federal programs 

ranked in the thematic categories of the National Invasive Species Management 

Plan (2001). 

While we appreciate the goals of the bill, we have some concerns with the legislation. 

First, the Department notes that almost all of the actions called for in S. 1541 

can be achieved within existing authorities. As discussed in some detail above, we 

have and will continue to support state and private invasive species management 

activities. Both BLM and FWS provide funding support through cost share grant 

programs to promote work on non-federal lands. Congress has also provided authority for the Department, through the BLM and the FWS, to enter into cooperative 

agreements with non-federal landowners in which invasive species issues could be 

addressed. The Administration recently forwarded proposed legislation which provides NPS with this authority. Enacting this proposal would be an effective way to 

address lands neighboring national parks. 

In addition, the President signed Public Law No. 108-412 on October 30, 2004, 

which provides additional authority to the Secretary of Agriculture under the Plant 

Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) to provide financial and technical assistance 

to control or eradicate noxious weeds. That law specifically creates a rapid response 

program, allowing the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into cooperative agreements 

with weed management entities to ensure rapid eradication of noxious weeds. 

We also greatly appreciate the focus this legislation places on the development of 

rapid response mechanisms in states, local governments, nongovernmental entities, 

and tribes. However, the Department has existing authority under which it may 

provide financial assistance for this purpose, including the general grant-making authority under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Fish and Wildlife Act 

8

of 1956 which allows the Secretary to make grants for the benefit of fish and wildlife. 

We recognize the need for a comprehensive view of invasive species programs, but 

the development of a crosscut budget should be the responsibility of the National 

Invasive Species Council; we cannot support changing this to the Office of Management and Budget, as proposed in S. 1541. The Council was created by Executive 

Order 13112 to coordinate federal invasive species policy and programs and, as mentioned previously, has already developed crosscut budgets in 2005 and 2006. The 

Council should retain this responsibility. 

Finally, we have concerns about the Congressional expectations that might arise 

from the sizeable authorization levels contained in this legislation which would authorize assessment grants at $25 million for FY 2006, control grants at $175 million 

for FY 2006, and rapid response assistance at $50 million for FY 2006, and ‘‘such 

sums as are necessary’’ for FYs 2007-2010. We cannot support these authorization 

levels, and note that any new funding provided for the program authorized by this 

legislation would have to compete with existing programs and other Administration 

priorities. 

CONCLUSION

The Department is committed to identifying, assessing, and acting to address 

invasive species. We agree with the principles embodied in this legislation and will 

continue to work with our partners to develop a more effective assessment and control strategy for responding to animal and plant invasions. Our goal is to ensure 

the protection of our land and water resources and to promote the restoration of important wildlife habitat impacted by invasive species. 

Again, while we share the Committee’s concerns and interest in this issue, we 

note that almost all of the actions called for in this legislation can be achieved within existing authorities. We offer to work with the Committee to ensure that existing 

programs and authorities are effectively targeted to address the Committee’s concerns. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any 

questions that you might have.

Senator CRAIG. Why don’t we stop you there and see if the Senator has any questions. I have a few, and then you can give the 

balance of your testimony and we’ll turn to Gloria for hers. Thank 

you. 

Any questions of Scott? 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for the opportunity you are giving me 

to ask my questions. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. I appreciate the 

level of activity and commitment of USFS to fight against invasive 

species. There’s no question in my mind that you want to do all you 

can to work on the problem. 

My question is whether you think or you believe the Department 

has been as effective as possible, given the authorities you currently have, in fighting invasive species in all States. If so, why are 

we still struggling to contain invasives on Federal lands? In particular, in Hawaii, we’re trying to set up our own programs. As I 

mentioned, even the State, the Governor and the legislature, have 

set aside money to take care of these invasives. I think S. 1541 will 

provide a broad approach to fighting invasives of many species and 

the necessary funding to help out. So, I’d like to hear comments 

from you. It could be about the funding as well, but why is it that 

we are not really—I don’t believe we are as effective as we can be 

here, at this time. 

Mr. CAMERON. Senator, Mr. Chairman, I would definitely agree 

with you, Senator, that we are not as effective as we could be, 

should be, or want to be. I think we are getting better at it from 

year to year and the performance budget cross-cut has been a tool 

for doing that. 

Two years ago, for the first time ever, we actually got agencies 

to sit down and try to develop common goals, common strategies 

9

and common performance measures as part of this budget cross-cut 

and that itself was a watershed event. The product is still very 

much a work in progress. 

I think it’s worth making the observation that invasive-speciestype projects are competing very well for funding with the existing 

grant programs of the Interior Department. We did a survey based 

on fiscal year 2004 grants for the Secretary’s new cooperative conservation program and our preexisting challenge cost share grant 

programs. And even in fiscal year 2004, without putting any deliberate emphasis on invasives projects, nationwide, invasive species 

issues or projects, were taking about 25 percent of the grant money 

for those two national grant programs. So, I think invasive species 

projects compete very well for existing funds for exactly the reasons, Senator, that you and the Chairman are aware of: the significant economic and environmental aspects. 

Clearly, whenever there is a new statutory authorization, particularly if it involves a lot of money, we worry about the expectations that that may set on the part of the Congress. Every dollar 

at Interior has to be traded off versus every other dollar. So, rather 

than creating a new grant program with, perhaps, a new bureaucracy to manage that grant program, what we are trying to do is 

raise the profile of the invasive species issues so they compete better, both on the merits and because of the importance of the topic 

within existing grant programs. 

Senator AKAKA. I thank you for that response, Mr. Cameron. We 

still look for it, of course, and you touched on it, to working with 

private landowners in this challenge to address invasive species. 

And I hope together we can work that out somehow, but in the 

meantime, invasive species—not only in Hawaii, but across the 

country—are spreading and we need to get to it before it really 

overcomes our country. I’ve heard from my colleagues, from the 

ranch land types, and I was amazed at the kind of invasive species 

they have to contend with and they would certainly, I’m sure, support this kind of program. 

So I thank you so much for your consideration and look forward 

to working at a program that can help the Nation. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Senator Akaka, thank you, very much. 

Scott, let me ask a couple of questions, because these kinds of 

concerns come and they are my concerns, and weed management 

legislation that is now in place in law, that I’ve been a part of with 

others, I’m always cautious on the wording we use for how it might 

get interpreted somewhere down the line. I like to think of the Endangered Species Act, itself, and what was originally intended by 

Congress and what has mutated out of the courts over the years, 

that is now being used as an obstructionist piece of legislation, to 

stop all activities on public lands, in many instances or otherwise. 

If it had been used the way it was intended, it would mitigate an 

activity to protect a species, but allow activities to continue. 

What I am speaking of is the definition of invasive species. I believe in S. 1541. And in speaking of that Scott, you say—the term 

invasive species means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any 

animal, plant, or organism or micro-organism, including biological 

material of the animal, plant or other organism that is capable of 

10

propagating the species that is not native to the ecosystem, and the 

introduction of which causes, or is likely to cause, economic harm, 

environmental harm or harm to human health. Now, is there any 

species that has relocated or invaded from one continent to another 

that wouldn’t fit that definition? 

Mr. CAMERON. Mr. Chairman, yes, there are quite a few and we 

eat them all the time. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I’m saying this with a bit a humor, but is 

the pineapple native to Hawaii? 

Senator AKAKA. No. 

Senator CRAIG. No. That’s my point. 

Mr. CAMERON. Right. 

Senator CRAIG. No, we don’t yet, but somebody might and that’s 

my concern about terminology. Please proceed. 

Mr. CAMERON. Mr. Chairman, I think you’ve hit on a very good 

point. A species that could be completely benign, say in New England, might cause real problems in Arizona. Senator Martinez’s 

largemouth bass in Florida are just great in Florida, but you probably would not want to stock them on top of endangered salmon 

in the Pacific Northwest. It might have—you might lose your salmon. 

So, a species’ invasiveness is really reflected at an ecosystem 

level, a local level. And you are very right, I think, to be cautious 

and anxious about putting together a list of species that always 

and everywhere are going to be considered bad. I somewhat humorously responded that we eat wheat and we eat rice all of the time, 

and those are certainly not species that are native to North America, but they are very valuable and we all enjoy pineapples as well. 

So, to the extent that we can deal with invasive species issues on 

a local or regional level and resist the temptation to Nationalize 

our approach, I think we are better off. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, could you provide me with the Department 

of the Interior’s definition of economic harm, environmental harm, 

or harm to human health? 

Mr. CAMERON. We could make a run at it, Senator. I don’t think 

there is enshrined in any official way a definition on our part, but 

we could certainly elaborate a bit and perhaps provide some examples. 

Senator CRAIG. Is there a plant that is introduced that is used 

to re-vegetate or, say, cut banks and highways that might cause 

some environmental harm? And how would the Department of the 

Interior utilize the definition of S. 1541 to decide how to balance 

the economic good of a plant against potential environmental harm 

that could be caused by this plant? 

Mr. CAMERON. It’s not an easy thing to do, Mr. Chairman, but 

what we’ll ideally do is a risk assessment, where on case-by-case 

basis, really a watershed-by-watershed basis, you would evaluate 

the benefits, whether they are environmental or economic, versus 

what you can infer, using hopefully some degree of scientific basis, 

the risks might be, both economic and environmental. So, I can certainly imaging a situation where, given our difficulty in using native vegetation to accomplish a particular programmatic need in an 

area, we might decide that the smartest thing to do under the circumstances would be to pick a non-native species. But then the 

11

question is very carefully monitoring the results of that choice to 

avoid any unintended consequences and be able to adjust for any 

unintended consequences that might arise. 

Senator CRAIG. There is no question. Because I am sitting here 

thinking, the Senator from Hawaii is talking about the concerns of 

Hawaii, tragically enough, and I don’t mean this humorously at all, 

but we have invasive species in Idaho now, taking over control of 

land. Probably we have more land now invaded than is encompassed in the entire State of Hawaii. Idaho is not alone. Other 

Western States are experiencing the same thing and, literally for 

decades, public land managers have done little to nothing about it, 

for a variety of reasons. 

Now, we’re attempting to contain. In some instances, we cannot 

eradicate, largely because of size and scope of it. But to be able to 

detect early is critical for a new invasion, and section 5 of S. 1541, 

the Public Land Protection Conservation Act, directs the Secretary 

of the Interior to expedite environmental and regulatory reviews to 

ensure that an outbreak of invasive species can be addressed within 180 days of notification. 

Can the Secretary complete environmental and regulatory reviews in 180 days now? And if not, what would have to change to 

meet these requirements? 

Mr. CAMERON. Mr. Chairman, I think the honest answer is yes, 

probably, almost all of the time. I think, inevitably, there will be 

some exceptions, but as a general rule, we should be able to do it 

within 180 days. In fact, I would hope that, in a truly emergency 

situation, we could get it done in a much shorter amount of time 

than that. One of the issues, as you and Senator Akaka both know, 

Mr. Chairman, is if you’re dealing with a plant that only, you 

know, increases its spread by 1 percent a year, then you can afford 

to wait for 180 days or maybe even a year to get to the process. 

If you’re worried about an invasive species whose population is 

going to be churning over once a week and the size of the area affected is going to quadruple in 3 months, then you’ve got a very different dynamic and you certainly have to move much more quickly. 

So, we need to understand the biology of the problem that we are 

dealing with and we need to look for ways to expedite in advance, 

as much as possible, our environmental compliance processing. So, 

we obey NEPA, obey the law that you set up, but still deal with 

the on-the-ground problem. 

Senator CRAIG. Section 4(c) of the bill directs the Secretary to 

publish guidelines and solicit grant applications within 180 days of 

funds being made available. Is 180 days a reasonable amount of 

time to publish guidelines and solicit grant applications? 

Mr. CAMERON. If you are willing to live with the very real possibility, that the first year we do it it may not be an idealized, you 

know, perfect form, then yes, I think we can do that. But again, 

I’d like to emphasize that we have existing grant programs right 

now that are funding invasive species projects, and I would argue 

it would be simpler and economically more efficient, in terms of not 

creating a new bureaucracy, to use the existing grant programs 

that we have now to deal with invasive species problems. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, thank you. That’s all the questions 

I have on 1541. 

12

Danny, any others? Thank you, very much, Senator. 

Scott, why don’t we return now to you for any additional testimony. I think you have testimony on S. 405? 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, sir. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much. 

Then, Ms. Manning, we’ll turn to you. 

Please continue, Scott. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT J. CAMERON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

SECRETARY FOR PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND 

HUMAN RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR— 

Continued 

Mr. CAMERON. Okay. S. 405, the bill would convey 229 acres of 

public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management to Clark 

County, Nevada, for use as a heliport. S. 405 would also impose 

fees on operators for all helicopter flights that occur over the Sloan 

Canyon National Conservation Area, which I believe is administered by BLM. The proceeds from these fees would be used for the 

management of cultural, wildlife and wilderness resources on public lands in the State of Nevada. 

Interior supports the goals of S. 405, but cannot support a conveyance of public lands that does not include a fair market value 

of return to the taxpayers for the value of those lands. We also 

have concerns about the specific helicopter flight paths over the 

Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area that the bill would set 

out. And should the committee decide to proceed on this legislation, 

we’d like to have some discussions about changing those flight 

paths so that, basically, they are not buzzing a herd of desert bighorn sheep in the National Conservation Area. We think it would 

be possible to avoid the National Conservation Area on the flight 

paths for the helicopters. 

Those are essentially our two issues, Mr. Chairman: the fact that 

the land will be conveyed without any financial recompense to the 

taxpayer and the fact that we’ve got this herd of desert bighorn 

sheep that having 90 or more helicopter flights over a day might 

be a bit of a difficulty. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Cameron on S. 405 and S. 1552 

follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT J. CAMERON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

S. 405

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to testify 

on S. 405, a bill that would convey 229 acres of public lands managed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) to Clark County, Nevada, for its use as a heliport. S. 

405 would also impose fees on operators for all helicopter flights that occur over the 

Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA) with the proceeds used for the 

management of cultural, wildlife, and wilderness resources on public lands in the 

State of Nevada. The Department supports the goals of S. 405, but cannot support 

a conveyance of public lands that does not ensure a fair return to the public for the 

use of those lands. 

The BLM recognizes the massive growth occurring in Clark County and understands the need to accommodate local interests and tourism in a way that balances 

local needs with important environmental considerations. Congress chose to address 

these concerns through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act 

(SNPLMA) and subsequent amendments that have established a sale boundary 

13

within which BLM has worked to provide public lands to accommodate the growth 

in and around Las Vegas. 

The public lands proposed for conveyance in S. 405 consist of 229 acres that lie 

immediately west of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, which includes 

the North McCullough Wilderness Area, and are bordered on the west by Interstate 

15. These lands are adjacent to, but fall just outside of, the SNPLMA disposal 

boundary. The legislation directs the BLM to convey these lands to Clark County 

for no consideration subject to valid existing rights. The BLM, as a matter of both 

policy and practice, and in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), generally requires receipt of fair market value for public lands 

transferred out of public ownership. This serves to ensure that taxpayers are fairly 

compensated for the removal of public lands from federal ownership. 

Given the high market value of these lands, we strongly recommend that the bill 

be modified to require the receipt of a fair market value payment for the lands to 

be conveyed. Alternatively and absent legislation, the BLM could lease these lands 

to Clark County under the existing authority of Section 302 of FLPMA. Under this 

scenario, the Department would grant a lease to Clark County and would charge 

an annual rental that reflects the market value of the land. 

S. 405 also imposes a $3 conservation fee for each passenger on a helicopter tour 

if any portion of the helicopter tour occurs over the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. The bill directs the Clark County Department of Aviation to collect 

these fees and deposit them in a special account in the United States Treasury to 

be used by the Secretary of the Interior for the management of cultural, wildlife, 

and wilderness resources on public land in the State of Nevada. The BLM supports 

the concept of this provision but recommends that the fees be adjusted for inflation 

and be deposited in SNPLMA’s Special Account. This would preclude the BLM from 

having to establish another permanent operating fund with essentially the same 

function as SNPLMA’s Special Account. It would also give the Secretary additional 

flexibilities, as provided for in SNPLMA, in addressing environmental needs in Nevada in addition to those defined in the bill. 

While the Department defers to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding safety and other airspace issues, we note that the FAA generally opposes 

legislative mandates for specific flight paths. The Department of the Interior also 

has concerns about the flight path identified in this legislation. The flight path as 

identified in the bill, and the anticipated frequency of flights, would greatly impact 

the very wilderness characteristics and visitor use values that the Congress sought 

to protect and preserve when it established the Sloan Canyon National Conservation 

Area and the North McCullough Wilderness Area in the Clark County Conservation 

of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. These areas contain sites frequently used by Native Americans and others for religious ceremonial purposes. 

They also provide important migration corridors and resting, breeding, and feeding 

grounds for desert bighorn sheep, which are a special status species in Nevada. 

Moreover, visitor solitude and quality recreation experiences would be diminished. 

The Department of Justice advises that it has concerns regarding inconsistencies 

in the bill which we would like to work with the Committee to address. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill. We look forward to working 

with the Committee to resolve the issues discussed above and address the needs of 

local communities and critical environmental issues in the State of Nevada. I will 

be happy to answer any questions. 

S. 1552

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1552. This bill would amend P.L. 97-435 by extending until December 31, 

2009, authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to release a reversionary interest contained in the patent of lands conveyed by the United States to Eastern Washington University. S. 1552 leaves untouched the provisions in P.L. 97-435 that protect the public interest and ensure that any transaction is compatible with the education and recreation purposes of the original patent. We therefore do not object to 

enactment of S. 1552. 

In 1961, the Bureau of Land Management issued a patent (#1216646) to Eastern 

Washington University for 21 acres of land on Badger Lake, Washington, under the 

authority of the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 

869 et seq.). As is standard in patents issued under the R&PP Act, this patent conveyed a restricted title, including the condition that the lands would revert to the 

United States if either the University or any successor used the land for other than 

recreational and educational purposes or attempted to transfer title to the land. 

14

By 1979, the University concluded that the 21 acres were unsuitable for the 

school’s purposes and sought Congressional assistance in exchanging the 21 acres 

for lands adjacent to the campus. On January 8, 1983, P.L. 97-435 was enacted. It 

provided a five-year period—which expired in January of 1988—during which the 

University would be allowed to sell or exchange the Badger Lake land for property 

more suitable to its needs, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to release the 

reverter provision so the lands could be sold or exchanged. 

P.L. 97-435 also contained provisions to address the concerns of the Department 

of the Interior regarding the protection of the public interest (exchange or sale to 

be at fair market value) and to ensure that any transaction would be as compatible 

as possible with the intent of the initial R&PP grant (the reversionary interest currently on the land held by the university to be placed on any land either received 

in exchange or purchased with the proceeds from the sale of the land). Also, as required by P.L. 97-435, the University and the Secretary concluded an agreement in 

1985 to implement the law. 

No sale or exchange of the land occurred during the five year period allowed 

under P.L. 97-435. S. 1552 would provide for a new deadline of December 31, 2009, 

to provide an opportunity for Eastern Washington University to locate land suitable 

for its needs. 

I would be glad to answer any questions.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much. Now, let’s turn to Gloria 

Manning, Associate Deputy Chief of the National Forest Systems, 

USDA Forest Service. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF GLORIA MANNING, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEMS, FOREST SERVICE,

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. MANNING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Originally, I was going 

to give testimony on S. 1541, the Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005. But in the interest of time, and since The 

Department of the Interior has given the lead, I think it would 

be—if you would just accept my written testimony, we would leave 

it at that. If that’s okay. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. We’ll do that. Thank you. 

Ms. MANNING. The next bill that I’d like to testify on is S. 1548, 

Coffman Cove. This bill would convey a portion of a 15-acre Forest 

Service administrative site situated in the center of a small Alaskan community, Coffman Cove, to the city of Coffman Cove. The 

bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture, without consideration, to 

convey fee simple title to 12 acres of the administrative site to the 

city. 

The Department objects to S. 1548 on the basis of long-standing 

policy that the Government receives market value for such conveyances. However, the Department is sympathetic to the needs of the 

city of Coffman Cove to control the future development of its future 

downtown area. 

The Forest Service played a central role in the development of 

the community. In the 1960’s, Coffman Cove was a logging camp 

and work site. Logs were harvested from the surrounding Tongass 

National Forest. Eventually, the community developed around the 

Forest Service administrative site. 

Should the subcommittee choose to move the bill, the Department would like to work with the subcommittee on amendments 

that would improve the accuracy and management efficiency. 

The second bill is H.R. 482, the Pine Springs Land Exchange. 

H.R. 482 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange 

with the Lubbock Christian University all right, title and interest 

in approximately 80 acres of National Forest System land within 

15

the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico, upon receipt of acceptable title to approximately 80 acres of non-Federal land. The university has operated a summer camp in the Lincoln National Forest for over 40 years on 40 acres that it owns. The University seeks 

to exchange 80 acres that it owns elsewhere in the forest for 80 

acres immediately adjacent to the camp that they now manage. 

The bill directs that the exchange be equal in value, that the appraisal conform to the uniform appraisal standards for Federal 

land acquisition, and that the proponent of the exchange and the 

United States share the costs of implementing the exchange equally. 

While the Department is not opposed to the exchange, we would 

like to work with the subcommittee and the bill’s sponsors on 

amendments to insure that land management issues related to 

floodplains and wetlands are adequately addressed. 

This concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Manning follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLORIA MANNING, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL

FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ON S. 1541,

S. 1548, AND H.R. 482 

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department views on S. 1541, the ‘‘Public Land Protection and Conservation Act of 2005’’; S. 1548, to provide for the conveyance of certain Forest Service 

land to the city of Coffman Cove, Alaska; and H.R. 482, to provide for a land exchange involving Federal lands in the Lincoln National Forest in the State of New 

Mexico. 

S. 1541—PUBLIC LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION

S. 1541 would establish a new grant program to assess and control the spread 

of invasive species across the United States, and would authorize financial assistance to respond rapidly to outbreaks of invasive species. The Department concurs 

with the principles embodied in the legislation, but we believe that the goals of the 

legislation can be met within existing authorities. 

The assistance program that this legislation would establish consists of several 

elements. Assessment grants, administered by the Secretary of the Interior, would 

provide funds to a state to identify the occurrence and extent of invasive species 

within the state and develop management priorities to address them. Control grants 

would be available to public or private entities and Indian tribes to carry out, in 

partnership with a Federal agency, control projects for the management or eradication of invasive species on public land or adjacent land. This grant program would 

be administered by the Secretary of the Interior and includes a requirement to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture regarding projects conducted on National Forest System lands. A third program would authorize assistance to states, local governments, public or private entities, and Indian tribes, to rapidly respond to 

invasive species outbreaks. A total of $250 million would be authorized for these 

three programs for fiscal year 2006. 

The Forest Service, among other USDA agencies, has several authorities and 

grant programs that allow it to address the invasive species threat in a variety of 

ways. We directly manage approximately 193 million acres across the National Forest System. We also provide technical assistance and administer a nationwide grant 

program to support cooperative invasive species management for all the Nation’s 

forested lands—urban, state, private, federal, and tribal lands—through our State 

and Private Forestry organization. The Research and Development organization provides solutions in addressing some of the most significant invasive species. Our responsibilities extend across the United States, from Alaska and Hawaii to the Caribbean and New England. 

The Forest Service’s long-term vision is to halt the increasing threat of invasive 

species and begin to reduce impacts and spread of invasive species across the United 

States. The Forest Service works to achieve these goals by using a number of inteVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:24 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109347 PO 26821 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\26821.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
16

grated techniques that address prevention, early detection and rapid response, control and management, and restoration and rehabilitation. 

The Department of Agriculture also plays a major role in all aspects of combating 

invasive species. The Government Accountability Office noted that in fiscal years 

1999 and 2000, the Department of Agriculture accounted for 89 percent of all 

invasive species funding by federal agencies (GAO/RCED-00-219). Agencies within 

the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior manage the greatest number of 

acres (193 million acres and 441 million acres respectively) of all federal land management agencies. These two departments, along with the Department of Commerce, co-chair the National Invasive Species Council, which helps to coordinate and 

ensure complementary, cost-efficient and effective Federal activities regarding 

invasive species. 

We recognize the need for a comprehensive view of invasive species programs, but 

the development of a crosscut budget should be the responsibility of the National 

Invasive Species Council; we cannot support changing this to the Office of Management and Budget, as proposed in S. 1541. The Council was created by Executive 

Order 13112 to coordinate federal invasive species policy and programs and, as mentioned previously, has already developed crosscut budgets in 2005 and 2006. The 

Council should retain this responsibility. 

In addition, we have concerns about the Congressional expectations that might 

arise from the sizeable authorization levels contained in this legislation which would 

authorize assessment grants at $25 million for FY 2006, control grants at $175 million for FY 2006, and rapid response assistance at $50 million for FY 2006, and 

‘‘such sums as are necessary’’ for FYs 2007-2010. We cannot support these authorization levels, and note that any new funding provided for the program authorized 

by this legislation would have to compete with existing programs and other Administration priorities. 

We commend the Subcommittee for recognizing the ecological problems posed by 

invasive species. The Subcommittee has recognized that the invasive species challenge to our Nation is enormous, and land managers and communities are using 

available resources to address it. We agree with the principles embodied in this legislation and will continue to work with our partners to develop a more effective assessment and control strategy for responding to animal and plant invasions. Our 

goal is to ensure the sustainability of our land and water resources and to promote 

the restoration of important wildlife habitat impacted by invasive species. 

In summary, while we concur with the principles embodied in the legislation, we 

note that almost all of the actions called for in this legislation can be achieved within existing authorities. We offer to work with the Committee to ensure that existing 

programs and authorities are effectively targeted to address the Committee’s concerns. 

S. 1548—COFFMAN COVE

S. 1548 would convey a portion of a 15-acre Forest Service administrative site situated in the center of a small Alaskan community, Coffman Cove, to the City of 

Coffman Cove. The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture, without consideration, 

to convey fee simple title to twelve acres of the administrative site, to the City. 

The Department objects to S. 1548 on the basis of long-standing policy that the 

government receives market value for such conveyances. However, the Department 

is sympathetic to the needs of the City of Coffman Cove to control the future development of its future downtown area. 

The Forest Service played a central role in the development of the community. 

In the 1960’s, Coffman Cove was a logging camp and work site. Logs were harvested 

from the surrounding Tongass National Forest. Eventually, the community developed around the Forest Service administrative site. 

In 1986, the State of Alaska received lands surrounding the Coffman Cove administrative site as part of its statehood entitlement. Over time, a decrease in timber 

sale activity led to a diminished need for the Forest Service administrative site. 

Within the last six years, all buildings have been removed from the site. 

Coffman Cove was incorporated in 1989, and is currently home to about 200 residents. The City is seeking to diversify its economic base in response to changes in 

the management of the surrounding Tongass National Forest and other economic 

conditions. With the development of a new ferry terminal adjacent to the Forest 

Service administrative site, economic opportunities for the City to develop commercial operations and tourism support facilities are improving. However, the location 

of the Forest Service parcel in the center of town, along the main street bisecting 

the town and near the ferry terminal, presents a significant obstacle to Coffman 

Cove’s efforts to more fully develop and diversify its economy and design its future 

17

downtown. The location of most of the parcel also makes it difficult and inefficient 

for the Forest Service to adequately manage the site. 

Should the Subcommittee choose to move the bill in spite of these concerns, the 

Department would like to work with the Subcommittee on amendments that would 

improve accuracy and management efficiency. 

H.R. 482—PINE SPRINGS LAND EXCHANGE

H.R. 482 would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange with the Lubbock 

Christian University all right, title and interest in approximately 80 acres of National Forest System land within the Lincoln National Forest, New Mexico upon receipt of acceptable title to approximately 80 acres of non-federal land. The University has operated a summer camp in the Lincoln National Forest for over 40 years 

on 40 acres that it owns. The University seeks to exchange 80 acres that it owns 

elsewhere in the Forest for 80 acres immediately adjacent to its existing camp. The 

bill directs that the exchange be equal in value, that the appraisal conform to the 

uniform appraisal standards for Federal Land Acquisition and that the proponent 

of the exchange and the United States share the costs of implementing the exchange 

equally. 

The Forest Service and Lubbock Christian University have discussed an administrative land exchange since 2001, roughly comprising the lands described in the bill. 

While the Department is not opposed to the exchange, we would like to work with 

the Subcommittee and the bill’s sponsor on amendments to insure that land management issues related to floodplains and wetlands are adequately addressed. 

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

may have.

Senator CRAIG. Gloria, thank you. Let me start with the land 

exchange. Can you review the history of this proposed land exchange for the committee? When did the proposal first surface with 

Lincoln National Forest? When did the administrative process 

break down? Do we know why the proponents of exchange gave up 

on the administrative process? And in the absence of a legislative 

exchange, how long would it take to complete the administrative 

process? Walk me through that, if you can. 

Ms. MANNING. We were first contacted in 1999, but not with a 

formal proposal. I think it was either 2000 or 2001, when we first 

got the formal proposal. We had been working, doing the analysis, 

but the university thought that it would expedite the exchange, if 

they were to go legislatively. There were some discrepancies in a 

previous appraisal, in the one we did in 2001, so we had to work 

through that and that took some time. But, from what I understand, this is not a controversial exchange. We haven’t done any 

work yet, but we understand that one of the trustees of the university had a legislative exchange before and he thought this would 

expedite the process. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, the reason I asked those questions, 

it seems like—well, I’m told that about 6 percent of all the land exchanges accomplished by the Forest Service are legislated. We have 

seen a number of bills in the last 2 years where relatively small 

exchanges are not implemented quickly enough to accommodate 

the needs of the proponents of the exchange. 

I would like you to provide the committee with a legislative 

drafting service that provides steps we can take to expedite the 

Forest Service’s administrative land exchange process. I’m growing 

increasingly confused, as my colleagues are, that very small parcels 

to be exchanged, that seem without conflict, that make sense on 

the landscape, just grind phenomenally slowly through the bureaucratic process. How do we fix that? And that is the question I am 

asking, that you might help us look at your process and say, where 

18

can we still meet all of our needs and not take 2 or 3 years? Because what’s happening is frustration. Oh well, if we can’t get them 

to work this in 3 or 4 years, then we will get it legislated. I hear 

that quite common now. I have people coming to me saying, the 

agencies tell us, well, you know what, yes, it’s the right thing to 

do, but it’s a nearly impossible thing to get through the system, so 

why don’t you go have your congressman legislate it? 

Ms. MANNING. Yes, it does take, on the average, about 2.5 years 

to get an exchange done. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, let’s reduce it to 1.5. Show us how you can 

do that. 

Ms. MANNING. We’d like to work with you there, if it were just 

the exchange laws, but we have a lot of other laws that we have 

to adhere to and we when we do the appraisal, if we find title discrepancies, we go back and forth. If we change boundaries, we have 

to adhere to NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, FLPMA, all of 

those laws, and if something happens with one of them, it sometimes takes us back to the beginning and we start all over again. 

But we are willing to work with the committee to see what areas 

that we can expedite, because we, too, would like to expedite the 

process. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, let’s take a look at it and see if there is 

something we might not be able to do, at least, with sizes of exchanges and all of that. When we are dealing with relatively small 

exchanges, that really would have little to no impact on or an accumulative effect on a broader landscape, we ought to try to give 

some convenience there. 

Can you tell me what the fiscal year 2005 budget for the Thorn 

Bay Ranger District was? 

Ms. MANNING. I think it was approximately $3 million. 

Senator CRAIG. I see, in your testimony, the normal call by the 

administration is to require compensation for land. I also see that 

you would like Congress to withhold three acres for the Forest 

Service to use as an administrative dite. How much money is the 

Thorn Bay Ranger District willing to pay the city of Coffman Cove 

for the three acres they would like the Congress to withdraw, in 

the event we give the city of Coffman Cove the entire 15-acre parcel? 

Ms. MANNING. That’s quite a question, sir. 

Senator CRAIG. Let’s make a deal. 

Ms. MANNING. Well, presently, the 15 acres is no longer being 

used as an administrative site. We wanted to withhold three acres, 

so that we could help with visitor questions and for public use. 

However, if the committee sees fit to give the land to Coffman 

Cove, we would not be interested in purchasing three acres from 

Coffman Cove. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I thought I’d put that deal on the board. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Scott, a couple of questions about the Clark County heliport conveyance. This bill requires the Department to give 229 acres of 

BLM land to Clark County, for use as a heliport at no cost to the 

county, but the Secretary of the Interior is required to cover administrative costs of the conveyance. 

19

The Southern Nevada Water Authority’s 2003 annual report shows that it receives $65 million through this Southern Nevada 

Public Land Management Act in just 1 year. I know the administration has expressed serious concerns with the windfall Nevada 

has gained through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act. 

Here are my questions: How much money has been deposited in 

State and local accounts in Nevada, as a result of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and the other similar acts 

passed by Congress over the last 10 years? Can you supply that for 

the committee? 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, I can. What I probably would do is present 

that in a detailed fashion for the record, but ballpark, the total collections have been about $2 billion over the last 10 years on the 

sale of BLM lands in that part of Southern Nevada. The Southern 

Nevada Water Authority has gotten about $200 million of that, 

during the period. The State of Nevada’s General Education Fund 

has gotten a little bit more than $108 million during that period 

of time. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Given the revenue generated through the 

sale of lands under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management 

Act, can you give us an estimate of the value of the 229 acres listed 

for conveyance in S. 405? 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, I can, at least a preliminary estimate, Mr. 

Chairman. We obviously have not done an appraisal, but ballpark, 

we are thinking the middle $50 million range. So, $55 million, $56 

million, something like that. 

Senator CRAIG. What would you estimate the cost of the administrative process might be for this conveyance, if Congress passes 

this? 

Mr. CAMERON. Mr. Chairman, it would be something less than $1 million. You would probably use $1 million as a likely ceiling. It 

could be a lot less than that, depending upon how much of an easy 

time we have with the cultural survey, with the endangered species 

surveys, that we always have to do. So, somewhere less that $1 

million, maybe as little as a couple hundred thousand dollars. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Isn’t there another administrative process 

through the Federal Aviation Administration could convey this 

land to the county for an airport? 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is. There is authority 

in Section 302 of the FLPMA for the county to lease the land. The 

Federal Aviation Administration also has authority, as I understand it, to convey the land, although I don’t seem to have my 

notes on that immediately in front of me. But yes, there is more 

than one way. Let me scan through here. Okay, here we go. Thank 

you. 

The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 provides authority for the conveyance and title to the county, based on application with the Federal Aviation Administration. There is no payment of fair market value under those circumstances. There’s a reversionary clause to the United States, in case the land ends up 

being used for something else, other than for the purpose that it 

was conveyed. There were, apparently, two conveyances like this 

nationwide in fiscal year 2001, another two in 2002, but apparently 

20

none in fiscal year 2003. I don’t have the data with regard to fiscal 

year 2004 or 2005. I’d suggest that the committee might want to 

inquire of the Federal Aviation Administration or Clark County as 

to why they might not be availing themselves of this authority. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, that was my next question. Do you know 

why the process wasn’t pursued for this particular process, the 

Federal Aviation Administration was not pursued? 

Mr. CAMERON. No, we don’t. I don’t, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Okay. Well, last, can the Department provide 

someone to provide us with a briefing—the committee with a briefing on the status of the Southern Nevada Lands Act, in the near 

future? You’ve given us a guesstimate, but we’d like a breakdown 

as to the revenue that has been realized by the State of the Nevada 

and its entities as a result of this particular action. 

Mr. CAMERON. We’ve been allotted to do that. We can provide the 

numbers very quickly and schedule a discussion, actually, at your 

and your staff’s convenience. 

Senator CRAIG. We would like that, thank you. We have a number of Members’ statements that will be included in the record of 

this hearing, including Senator Cantwell, Senator Reid, Senator 

Murkowski and Representatives Neugebauer and Berkley 

[The prepared statements of Senators Cantwell, Reid, Murkowski, and Representatives Neugebauer and Berkley follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR

FROM WASHINGTON, ON S. 1552

Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for taking the time 

today to hold this hearing on S. 1552. This legislation will extend an authorization 

allowing Eastern Washington University (EWU) to transfer the title of a small parcel of land. EWU hopes to use this authority to acquire land closer to its rapidly 

growing campus in Cheney, WA. 

In 1961, EWU acquired a 21-acre parcel of property near Badger Lake, WA from 

the federal government under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purpose 

Act. The law and land patent requires EWU to comply with certain restrictions. 

First, EWU must use the land for recreational or educational purposes. Second, 

ownership of the land parcel reverts back to the federal government should EWU 

transfer the title to the property. 

EWU had acquired the land from the Department of Interior with plans to develop a retreat for its music school. The university made numerous improvements 

to the property but revised its plans to install permanent buildings. In 1976, the 

University revised its management plan to reflect recreation as the primary use of 

the land. However, unsupervised recreation has been considered unsafe due to the 

location of the property several miles from the EWU campus and the physical features of the site, including steep cliffs at the edge of Badger Lake. 

To address these challenges, Eastern Washington University worked with Washington’s congressional delegation to pass legislation providing the university needed 

flexibility to deal with the land. During the 97th Congress, former House Speaker 

Tom Foley, worked to pass legislation that exempted the university from some of 

the conditions in the Badger Lake land patent for five years following enactment 

in 1983. 

Public Law 97-435, directed the Secretary of Interior to release certain restrictions 

placed on EWU. The law lifted restrictions that require the land to revert back to 

the federal government if used for purposes other than recreation or education or 

if EWU transfers the land title. The law conditions the release from the patent requirements upon an agreement between EWU and the Secretary committing the 

university to dispose the land only for the purpose of acquiring real property which 

is more suitable for educational and recreational purposes. 

Further, any property acquired by EWU will vest in the United States if the university uses the land for purposes other than recreation or education, attempts to 

transfer the title to the newly acquired land, or prohibits or restricts the use of the 

acquired land by any person because of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. 

21

Unfortunately, the university was unable to find a viable buyer during the five 

years following enactment of the Foley legislation. 

I introduced S. 1552 on July 28, 2005. This legislation would extend the authority 

enacted in the Foley legislation until December 31, 2009. Presently, EWU is a growing campus with a rapidly increasing student population. The university remains interested in transferring title to the Badger Lake land for the purposes of acquiring 

property nearer the campus to meet emerging needs. EWU believes it will be able 

to find a viable buyer should the extension of authority contained in this legislation 

be enacted. 

I am proud that Congresswoman Cathy McMorris has introduced companion legislation, H.R. 2100, in the House of Representatives during the 109th Congress. I 

would note for the Committee that the House passed identical legislation, H.R. 4596 

during the 108th Congress on September 28, 2004. The Office of Management and 

Budget reported that enactment of H.R. 4596 would have had no affect on the federal budget and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

I look forward to working with the Committee to ensure favorable consideration 

of this legislation. Thank you for your attention today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA,

ON S. 405

Thank you for your generous support and for allowing a hearing on this important 

legislation. 

The purpose of this bill is simple: It would convey about a third of a square mile 

of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management to Clark County for 

development of a new a heliport. The land is located just south of the Henderson 

city limits and east of Interstate 15. The bill would also impose fees on operators 

for all helicopter flights that occur over the Sloan Canyon National Conservation 

Area (NCA), with the proceeds used for the management of cultural, wildlife, and 

wilderness resources on public lands in the State of Nevada. Finally, this bill would 

restrict helicopter operators to a detailed flightpath, with appropriate elevations, 

that will ensure the protection of the values found in the Sloan Canyon National 

Conservation Area and the sanity of residents who have been subject to the noise 

of the helicopters. 

Local officials in southern Nevada are committed to establishing a heliport within 

the Las Vegas Valley to preserve this quintessential Las Vegas experience and a 

strong tourism industry. The county and local municipalities have previously considered a site, currently in use as a go-kart track, near Interstate 15 near Henderson. 

However, tours originating from this location would fly over the most sensitive parts 

of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, with no restrictions on routing or 

elevation. Sloan Canyon itself—one of the richest petroglyph sites in the Mohave 

Desert—would be subject to regular overflights. That outcome would be entirely 

legal, entirely predictable and entirely regrettable. 

In 2002, I worked closely with Senator Ensign, Congresswoman Berkley, Congressman Gibbons and local advocates to protect the Sloan Canyon area and its 

unique cultural resources. Through our combined efforts, we created the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the McCullough Mountains Wilderness. I am 

proud of this accomplishment and believe this legislation provides protection for the 

precious resources that we worked to safeguard in 2002 while resolving the conflict 

between air tour operators and Las Vegas residents. 

This legislation would not prohibit helicopter overflights of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area. But it does ensure that such flights steer clear of the most 

sensitive and special cultural resources and minimize the impact on the majestic 

bighorn sheep and other wildlife that live in the McCullough Mountains. 

Importantly, my legislation also requires that every such flight contribute $3 per 

passenger to a special fund dedicated to the protection of the cultural, wilderness, 

and wildlife resources in Nevada. These provisions justify conveying the land to 

Clark County at no cost because they provide a stable, long-term source of funding 

in excess of the market value of the land and because the conveyance and use are 

in the public interest. 

I am hopeful that my distinguished colleagues will work with me to pass this important legislation during the current session. 

22

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA,

ON S. 1548

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. One of the five bills that we will hear today is 

S. 1548 which authorizes the Forest Service to convey a 12 acre administrative site 

that it no longer needs to the City of Coffman Cove on Prince of Wales Island in 

Southeast Alaska. 

The City of Coffman Cove is completely surrounded by the Tongass National Forest. It was born as a logging camp. However, with the downturn in logging on 

Prince of Wales Island, the community of 230 people is looking for opportunities to 

diversify its economy. The 12 acres that the Forest Service no longer needs is one 

of the few remaining pieces of property available in Coffman Cove and the property 

is located in the center of downtown. 

I understand that the Forest Service would prefer to sell the property rather than 

gift it to the City, but the plain truth is that the City doesn’t have the money to 

buy it. The City’s annual budget is on the order of $380,000—$240,000 of that comes 

from grants which are dedicated to specific purposes. 

So if we don’t pass this legislation, the Forest Service gets to keep a piece of property it neither needs nor wants and the City of Coffman Cove continues to suffer 

from having an unproductive piece of land right in the center of downtown. Surely, 

we can do better for this small community, which doesn’t even have a grocery store. 

I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of the Mayor of the City of Coffman 

Cove be included in the record and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the 

witnesses. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM TEXAS, ON H.R. 482

Chairman Craig and Ranking Member Wyden, thank you for including H.R. 482 

on the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee’s hearing schedule today. I also 

want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Senator Domenici, for meeting 

with me to discuss this land exchange that takes place in his home state. 

H.R. 482 provides for a small land exchange between the Lincoln National Forest 

in New Mexico and Lubbock Christian University, located in my Congressional district in Texas. The legislation is cosponsored by Congressman Steve Pearce from 

New Mexico, and the House of Representatives passed H.R. 482 on April 12, 2005 

by voice vote. I ask that the Senate also pass the legislation this year. 

Lubbock Christian University (LCU) owns and operates Pine Springs Camp, 

which is located on 40 acres within the Lincoln National Forest. LCU also owns an 

undeveloped 80-acre tract in the Lincoln National Forest a few miles northwest of 

the camp. This tract is fully surrounded by National Forest land and has limited 

access. 

LCU would like to expand Pine Springs Camp in order to accommodate the 

growth in the number of campers. In the past ten years, summer campers have increased from 650 to more than 1,250 youth. In order to expand the camp, the university proposes to exchange its undeveloped 80-acre tract for up to 80 acres of National Forest land that border the existing camp, consisting of two 20-acre tracts 

and one 40-acre tract. Pine Springs Camp would use the land for new athletic fields 

and, in the future, for an amphitheater and new camp housing. 

LCU is a non-profit entity. Pine Springs Camp was deeded to the University in 

1996, and has become an important part of LCU. Pine Springs Camp is used in the 

summer for ten one-week camp sessions staffed by LCU students and church volunteers and in the winter by college groups, youth groups and churches for retreats. 

Pine Springs Camp operates as a non-profit; camp fees cover operating costs, and 

camp improvements are made by volunteers and through donations. 

While LCU has initiated an administrative land exchange with the Forest Service, 

LCU, as a non-profit, is concerned with the uncertainty in costs and time involved 

in an administrative exchange. My LCU constituents asked me to introduce H.R. 

482 because this legislation helps streamline the land exchange process, while still 

including a full land appraisal and review, and sets a time limit for its completion. 

H.R. 482 allows for a small and straightforward federal land exchange and provides significant benefits to both parties. A lengthy and expensive exchange, however, would not provide the same benefits to either LCU or the Forest Service. 

Without the exchange, LCU may need to sell its inholding to another landowner 

or develop it into a replacement camp, an expensive option. By expanding Pine 

Springs Camp in its existing location through acquisition of the federal land, LCU 

will have space to allow for future growth. By acquiring LCU’s 80-acre inholding, 

23

the Lincoln National Forest will increase and consolidate the Forest Service’s undeveloped land within the forest. 

Chairman Craig and Ranking Member Wyden, on behalf of my constituents at 

LCU and Pine Springs Camp, I ask that your Subcommittee and the full Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee support this legislation and report it favorably for the full Senate’s consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE

FROM NEVADA, ON S. 405

Mr. Chairman: I am pleased today to join the other members of the Nevada congressional delegation in supporting S. 405, legislation that would transfer land from 

the Bureau of Land Management to Clark County for use as a heliport. I appreciate 

the efforts of the subcommittee in considering this important legislation. 

Tourism is the engine that drives the Las Vegas economy, and companies offering 

helicopter tours of the Grand Canyon are an important part of the Las Vegas experience. Unfortunately, the explosive growth in our area has made the operation of 

these air tour companies at Las Vegas’ McCarran International Airport increasingly 

difficult for both the businesses themselves and for area residents who are impacted 

by the noise. Moving the heliport to a new, more remote location and establishing 

flight patterns to protect Sloan Canyon’s wonders are both important compromises 

needed to reduce noise pollution and to ensure that our air tour operators can continue doing business for years to come. 

I am an original cosponsor of companion legislation approved by the House in 

May, and I urge the subcommittee to support this important measure. Thank you.

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, both of you, for your time 

and your preparedness.And again, Scott, we would like this information in a reasonable time, as it relates to revenues, for the committee to be briefed. 

Mr. CAMERON. We’ll try to get the statistics for you by the end 

of the week and get the meeting scheduled shortly thereafter. 

Senator CRAIG. Very good. Thank you much. The committee will 

stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon at 4:10 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

[The following statement was received for the record:]

STATEMENT OF RANDALL H. WALKER, DIRECTOR OF AVIATION, CLARK COUNTY, 

NEVADA, ON S. 405

My name is Randall H. Walker and as the Director of Aviation for Clark County, 

Nevada I appreciate the opportunity to submit written testimony before the subcommittee on S. 405. The Department of Aviation (CCDOA) owns and operates Las 

Vegas—McCarran International Airport. McCarran Airport, fulfilling its critical role 

as a gateway for nearly 50% of all visitors to Las Vegas, handled in excess of forty 

(40) million passengers in 2004. In addition, CCDOA operates a system of five general aviation (GA) airports providing much needed capacity relief to McCarran. 

I urge support for S. 405 which is urgently needed to address a pressing aviation 

issue, namely helicopter noise over residential areas within Las Vegas. Because of 

our tourism based economy, Las Vegas has become the primary jumping-off point 

for visits to the Grand Canyon National Park. A portion of those visits occur as helicopter air tours originating from McCarran airport. 

An expanding segment of the Las Vegas tourist experience is the Grand Canyon 

helicopter air tour operations which have increased by approximately 50% over the 

past three years and now exceed almost 65 thousand operations per year. Given the 

number of new hotel rooms under construction, CCDOA can only surmise that this 

growth will continue into the foreseeable future. Below is a chart which shows the 

growth in helicopter operations from Las Vegas which traverses Tropicana and 

Charleston Boulevards, heavily populated areas of the valley.

24

AVERAGE DAILY CORRIDOR USE—OCTOBER 

Corridor 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Tropicana ......................................... 58 60 66 89 91 107

Charleston ........................................ 58 66 63 83 89 105

The helicopter air tour departure and return corridors direct the helicopters over 

older, established neighborhoods. Some 90,000+ residents have lived in these homes 

for a number of years with no expectation of what they are now subjected to. 

The noise is exaggerated because the helicopters must remain at a low altitude 

(as low as 800 feet above ground level) and within the prescribed corridors to avoid 

traffic conflicts with fixed-wing aircraft flights operating at Nellis Air Force Base, 

the North Las Vegas Airport and McCarran Airport. 

Under Federal law enacted in the early 1990’s designed to prevent communities 

from imposing airline noise controls at local airports, CCDOA as the operator of a 

federally funded airport cannot prevent the helicopters from using McCarran Airport or in any way take an action that could be deemed to discriminate against the 

tour operators. Rather, CCDOA must develop an alternative heliport the operators 

will voluntarily choose to move to because they deem it to be in their best financial 

interest. 

The county’s acquisition of a parcel of vacant, federally owned land called for in 

this bill is the best answer we have to this problem. CCDOA’s intent is to construct 

on the site a facility to which the air tour operators will willingly relocate. This bill 

provides for the transfer of the 229 acres of BLM land for this purpose. This acreage 

should be adequate to support existing and future air tour activities plus all associated support and infrastructure facilities. The site is approximately 12 miles south 

of the Las Vegas ‘‘Strip’’ with surface access provided by Interstate Highway 15 and 

State Route 604 (Las Vegas Boulevard South). We have reviewed many other possible sites including the land fill on the eastern rim of the valley and another site 

at Railroad Pass. For a variety of reasons the site identified in this bill is superior. 

The legislative proposal attaches a number of conditions to the land’s transfer. 

These include:

• the parcel is to be used only as a heliport; • the parcel is not to be disposed of by Clark County; • Clark County shall pay all administrative costs associated with the land’s conveyance from the Department of the Interior; • the parcel shall revert to federal ownership if the county ceases to use it as a 

heliport in accordance with the legislative intent; • operators at the non-urban heliport will pay a fee for each passenger transported over the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area; • such fees as may be collected will be made available for protection of natural 

and cultural resources within the conservation area and the North McCullough 

Mountains Wilderness Area; • tours originating from the non-urban heliport shall cross the conservation area 

only within a defined, narrow, corridor (Exhibit 2—Clark County Public Heliport Facility).

The CCDOA is comfortable with each of these conditions, several of which reflect 

concerns raised by Federal land managers, Native American and environmental interests. CCDOA is committed to the identification, evaluation and, to the extent possible, the mitigation of legitimate environmental impacts which might be attributed 

to the development and operation of the non-urban heliport through a thorough 

NEPA review. In doing such a NEPA analysis, the county must and will consider 

those impacts associated with each alternative site, as well as the continued operation of helicopter air tours from McCarran International Airport. 

The undeveloped mountainous areas south of Las Vegas, including the Sloan Canyon Conservation Area and the North McCullough Mountains Wilderness Area, already experience numerous aircraft overflights. Low altitude McCarran, Henderson 

Executive and Boulder City aircraft operations commonly occur over these areas. 

This reality was acknowledged in the legislative language that established the conservation and wilderness areas just three years ago in 2002. The addition of the helicopter tour operations is not expected to raise related noise to federally established 

levels of significance. The NEPA document, which CCDOA is currently drafting together with the FAA and BLM, will fully consider noise and overflight impacts on 

sensitive populations in the manner prescribed by federal regulations. 

CCDOA owns the ‘‘Go Kart/Sloan’’ site, and has found it to be a suitable and economically viable location for the non-urban heliport. This site, located about 3 miles 

25

immediately north of the parcel detailed in the Senator’s bill, was initially preferred 

for the non-urban heliport. Subsequently, the community asked that the ‘‘South of 

Sloan’’ site (which has been identified in the legislation) be added to the environmental evaluation process. Quite frankly, the CCDOA’s concern was and is that 

‘‘South of Sloan’’ will not be available because it is federally owned and outside the 

BLM’s disposal area boundary. 

If ‘‘South of Sloan’’ cannot be conveyed in a timely manner, if unreasonable restrictions are placed on its development, and/or if the unmitigatable environmental 

impacts associated with ‘‘South of Sloan’’ are greater than ‘‘Go Kart/Sloan’’ the 

CCDOA intends to proceed with development at ‘‘Go Kart/Sloan’’. 

Let all understand that the construction of the non-urban heliport within the next 

three to four years is needed to preclude the shifting of the helicopter air tour operations from McCarran Airport to the Henderson Executive Airport. This simple relocation of the helicopter tour operations to another urban airport would create new 

flight corridors over existing neighborhoods and thus only serve to shift noise concerns from one community to another. Clark County elected officials have long held 

that it is undesirable to take an action that simply shifts a burden from one set 

of neighbors to another. 

In conclusion, CCDOA, with support and cooperation from the Congress, the FAA 

and the BLM, has embarked on the development of a new non-urban heliport. The 

county’s intent is to balance the needs and interests of the air tour operators, our 

valley’s residents and the environmental community. There is no simple or perfect 

answer to the helicopter air tour issue faced by CCDOA. Nevertheless, my agency 

and staff has not backed away, but has attempted to forge ahead and barter a workable, reasonable solution. What we ask Congress for is an ability to obtain the 229 

acres of land at the designated ‘‘South of Sloan’’ site if, at the end of the environmental review process, that site is deemed the most acceptable alternative. 

Thank you.

(27)

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSES OF SCOTT J. CAMERON

Question 1. Is there any language in S. 1541 that would preclude a private landowner, or the federal government, from using non-native species on their lands? Can 

you please comment specifically with respect to the definition of ‘‘invasive species?’’

Answer. No. The bill language would not preclude a private landowner or the federal government from using a non-native species on their lands. Programs funded 

under S. 1541 address the relatively narrow class of ‘‘invasive’’ species, not the 

broader group of non-native species. In order to be covered by the provisions of the 

legislation, a species must be not only non-native to a particular ecosystem, but also 

the introduction of that species must cause or be likely to cause economic harm or 

harm to human health or the environment. Additionally, with regard to private 

lands, activities authorized under the legislation may only be carried out with the 

consent of the private landowner. 

Question 2. The Weed Bill authorizes activities on Forest Service and BLM lands. 

How specifically does DOI address weeds not on Forest Service and BLM lands or 

lands adjacent to those lands? 

Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages lands in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), and the National Park Service, which manages national parklands and historic sites, have extensive programs for managing invasive 

species. 

In the refuge system, control and eradication of invasive species is an important 

part of refuge management and, in many cases, part of day-to-day operations. In 

addition, the NWRS invasive species team developed a National Strategy for Management of Invasive Species to guide invasive species management in the refuge 

system. This strategy emphasizes assessment information, monitoring recommendations, and best management practices, and operations on refuge lands include preventive activities, early detection and rapid response, control and eradication, research and monitoring, cooperative partnerships and cost share projects and public 

education about invasive species. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques 

used in the field include the application of chemicals, mechanical and hand removal, 

use of prescribed fires, cultural techniques, and biological control. Prevention efforts 

are significant in preventing newly discovered infestations from gaining a foothold 

in refuges. FWS has authorities it uses to partner with private landowners, and 

these can be used in tandem with invasives work on private lands adjacent to 

NWRS lands. 

The NPS uses various approaches to control invasive populations in national 

parks and protect sensitive populations from destruction by invasive species, including integrated pest management techniques. However, the NPS has no statutory authority to partner with adjacent landowners to address invasive species issues of 

mutual concern outside of parks. The Administration requested such authority in 

a proposal transmitted to Congress in August 2005. 

As part of the National Park Service’s Natural Resource Challenge, a new management strategy was created for addressing invasive species in national parks. 

Modeled after the approach used in wildland fire fighting, field-based Exotic Plant 

Management Teams (EPMTs) provide highly trained, mobile strike forces of plant 

management specialists who assist parks in the identification, treatment, control, 

restoration, and monitoring of areas infested with invasive plants. There are now 

16 teams covering 209 parks nationwide. This successful model has also been adopted by the FWS. The success of the EPMTs derives from accountability and its ability 

to adapt to local conditions and needs while still serving multiple units within a 

broad geographic area. Moreover, the NPS’s Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program networks are helping parks develop monitoring programs for the detection of 

new invasions so a quick response can ultimately remove the threat before it beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:24 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 109347 PO 26821 Frm 00031 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\26821.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
28

comes unmanageable. The information is also used by EMPTs for identifying treatment areas and coordinating control projects with parks. 

Departmental bureaus also partner with other federal and non-federal entities on 

research projects. The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Reclamation 

partner with the Agriculture Research Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and university scientists to develop and test biological control agents and conduct studies of 

stream flow management for vegetation control and of hybridization to better predict the potential future spread of invasive species. The USGS also has partnerships 

with state and county weed departments, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others aimed at mapping currently invaded sites and identifying 

new invasions of weeds like tamarisk (also known as saltcedar). 

Finally, the BOR leads, along with USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, the 

Saltcedar Biological Control Consortium, a task force comprised of over 40 agencies, 

and BOR, in collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory, that also develops 

new technologies for determining the amount of water lost from the Rio Grande 

River due to tamarisk and for assessing restoration potential based upon soil salinity and chemical composition. 

Question 3. How does DOI address weeds not on the Federal Noxious Weeds list? 

Answer. We recognize that weeds can be harmful even if they are not formally 

listed as noxious. Bureau land managers partner with the U.S. Geological Survey 

and other research organizations to identify the invasive plants that cause the 

greatest damage to resources under the Department’s jurisdiction—such as migratory birds or endangered species. Specific treatment plans are then developed utilizing currently approved integrated pest management and resource management 

protocols. Depending on the priority, treatments are targeted at the specific point 

in the life cycle when maximum control can be achieved while, at the same time, 

minimizing the harm to other resources. 

Question 4. If a species is non-native, is it necessarily an invasive species? 

Answer. No, relatively few non-native species are ‘‘invasive species.’’ According to 

Executive Order 13112, which guides federal policy on these issues, an invasive species is defined as an alien species—a species that is not native to a particular ecosystem—whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or harm to human 

health or the environment. Many non-native species provide valuable food and fiber, 

recreational, and hobby interest for Americans without fear of economic harm or 

harm to human health or the environment. For example, any species under cultivation as a crop or managed as livestock are not commonly considered invasive species 

because their presence is economically advantageous and impacts on the environment are under effective control.

Æ