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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–863 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–85 

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LAND BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, 

AND MINING 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 37 S. 1300 

S. 343 S. 1301 

S. 364 S. 1309 

S. 404 H.R. 507 

S. 509 H.R. 862 

S. 753 H.R. 876 

S. 1169 H.R. 993 

JULY 30, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming ............................................. 3 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator From Montana .................................................. 7 

Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator From Washington ....................................... 6 

Farquhar, Ned, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 17 

Flake, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From Arizona ....................................................... 6 

Hammack, Katherine G., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment) U.S. Army ..................................................................... 12 

Heinrich, Hon. Martin, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ..................................... 5 

Manchin, Hon. Joe, U.S. Senator From West Virginia ......................................... 1 

Natsuhara, Roger M., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) U.S. Navy ................................................................. 15 

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator From Nevada ...................................................... 2 

Risch, Hon. James E., U.S. Senator From Idaho .................................................. 6,11 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana ..................................................... 9 

Weldon, Leslie, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ....................................................................................... 26 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 2 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 41 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 43 

(1) 

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS BILLS 

TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND

MINING, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:40 a.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator MANCHIN. The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests and Mining will come to order. This afternoon, the subcommittee will consider 13 bills, including several bills that were 

considered in previous years. 

We also have 3 bills on the agenda which would extend public 

land withdrawals for military installations in Montana, New Mexico, and California. The current authorizations for these areas expire in the near future, so I hope to have these bills ready for 

markup at a full committee business meeting as soon as possible. 

Several bills on today’s agenda are sponsored by members of the 

committee, and I look forward to working with them to get their 

bills ready for mark up. 

In addition, Senator Baucus and Senator Tester have asked to 

speak in support of their bills relating to Federal land management 

in Montana. I know both Senators have spent years developing and 

refining their proposals, and I will work with them to address any 

remaining issues. 

In general, I believe the Senators from the affected States know 

best about how to resolve land management issues in their State, 

and I think their views should be taken very seriously. 

I believe many of the bills on today’s agenda are noncontroversial. In particular, I want to note my support for H.R. 507, which 

would allow for the conveyance of 2 small parcels in southern Arizona to the Pascua Yaqui Indian Tribe. 

The chairman has met with me and conveyed the importance of 

these additions to the reservation. It appears that the tribe has 

worked closely with the Arizona congressional delegation so that 

the bill has strong local support. 

At this time, I’d like to recognize our chairman, Senator Ron 

Wyden, from Oregon. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:] 

2 

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

Thank you Chairman Manchin and Senator Barrasso for the opportunity to address your subcommittee about this bipartisan proposal to facilitate the remediation 

and redevelopment of a dangerous abandoned mine site near Lake Mead. 

This February, I reintroduced the Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation 

Act of 2013 together with Senator Heller. A companion bill was introduced in the 

House, where it is backed by all members of the Nevada congressional delegation. 

Last Monday, the bill passed the House under suspension of the rules. 

The onset of World War I nearly 100 years ago required the U.S. military to replace foreign natural resource imports with domestic supplies, including manganese 

needed for steel production. Therefore, the Three Kids Mine in Henderson, Nevada, 

began producing manganese in 1917, and continued to support the building of warships and tanks through 1961, after which it was mostly abandoned and used occasionally as a storage site for federal manganese reserves. The Three Kids site was 

forgotten for decades, until the population explosion in southern Nevada put the 

mine right in people’s backyards. 

Today, the Three Kids Mine site is littered with hazards, including three large 

mine pits that are hundreds of feet deep, ruins from the mine facility, and a sludge 

pool of mine tailings made up of arsenic, lead, and diesel fuel. 

As a result of how the mine was developed and managed, about three-quarters 

of the site is federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

the Bureau of Reclamation, while the remaining portion is privately owned. Unfortunately, because of the complicated land ownership pattern and the immense cost 

of cleanup, the federal government was never able to initiate the reclamation process. To turn the Three Kids Mine site into a job-creating opportunity while also cleaning up this public health and safety hazard, our legislation directs the BLM to convey the 948 acres of federal land on the site to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency at fair market value, after taking into consideration the cost of cleanup for the 

whole mine site. 

The City of Henderson will then be able to take advantage of Nevada redevelopment laws designed to address blight conditions such as the Three Kids Mine. The 

land conveyance directed by S. 343 would allow Henderson to work with local developers to finance and implement a plan to remediate the abandoned toxic mine site. 

The cleanup will be undertaken to meet stringent state and federal standards. Local 

officials and developers will finally be able to turn this wasteland into safe, productive land for the local community. 

The project will take decades from start to finish, but the City of Henderson and 

the developers are committed to the effort, and have worked hard to put together 

a viable plan to fix this old problem without costing taxpayers a dime for cleanup. 

Keeping our communities safe, healthy, and livable is critical. Removing this physical and environmental hazard from Southern Nevada is a high priority for the City 

of Henderson, and for our delegation. 

I look forward to working with this committee to move S. 343 through the legislative process. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony. I request that my statement be included in the record. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OREGON 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Manchin, Senator Barrasso, for your courtesy, and also to our witnesses as well. 

I know everybody has a tight morning, and I have to chair a hearing for Senator Murray on health care, something that Chairman 

Baucus and I care a lot about, so I’ll be brief. 

Today, you all are going to look at 3 bills that Oregonians care 

a great deal about. The Oregon Eastside Forest legislation in particular is legislation that encompasses a historic agreement between the timber industry and the environmental community. 

Certainly, Senator Tester knows something about trying to put 

those together. 

The heart of the challenge, of course, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, is the West is on fire. We have millions and millions of 

3 

acres of these overstocked stands that are essentially magnets for 

fire. 

Senator Flake, of course, has seen the horrendous consequences 

of this most recently. 

What we ought to be doing is going in there, getting that material, thinning out the forests so they’ll be healthier, and getting 

that material to the mills so we can get folks back to work. 

This is particularly important in Eastern Oregon, where we have 

only a handful of surviving timber mills. What we say, of course, 

to the environmental community is, if you really, really treasure 

the land, you ought to get in there, work with all sides, thin these 

overstocked forests out, because if we don’t, we won’t have much 

of anything left other than a lot of burn material. 

So I’m very pleased, Chairman Manchin, that you’re looking at 

that legislation today. 

I’m pleased that the Forest Service supports the legislation, in 

fact, has essentially, even before the bill has been enacted, tried to 

put in place some of the provisions of the legislation. 

Then second, you all are considering S. 1309. This is a bill I’ve 

introduced at the request of the administration that will extend the 

military withdrawals for key military installations in California 

and Montana. This is something that is time sensitive, and I appreciate your scheduling that. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, on another important forestry matter 

that I think all Westerners care about, you are going to be considering legislation today to reauthorize stewardship contracting before the authority expires at the end of the fiscal year. I think this 

is extraordinarily important throughout the West. Again, it’s something that allows us to start building a new ethic around forest 

health, and I appreciate your consideration of it. 

My thanks to you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, for letting me 

intrude this way on a busy morning. I look forward to working with 

you. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

At this time, we will hear from our ranking member, Senator 

Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for 

holding this hearing. I welcome each of our witnesses today, including Senators Baucus and Tester. 

Today, we have several Bureau of Land Management public domain land withdrawals that are important to our Nation’s military 

readiness. I understand they are time sensitive, so I’m pleased that 

we have them able to be included in this hearing. 

There are also complex public land bills before us today with important policy implications for our land management agencies that 

we have to look at very carefully. 

I would like to note Senator Flake’s bill to renew and update nationwide stewardship contracting authority for the Forest Service 

and the Bureau of Land Management. I applaud Senator Flake for 

his efforts. 

4 

I commend my colleagues, Senator Tester and Chairman Wyden, 

for offering constructive legislative responses to the dysfunctional 

status quo we all agree exists with respect to forest management. 

It’s my hope that S. 37 and S. 1301 will serve a greater purpose. 

I hope these bills act to advance the debate over forest management nationwide. I hope they encourage a bipartisan solution to 

address the systemic problems that are preventing the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from getting timber out 

of our forests. 

Senator Wyden, our committee chairman, said at our June 26th 

forest management hearing that there are 3 main obstacles to getting more timber harvested. One was funding; the second was planning and NEPA; and the third was litigation. I think he’s absolutely right. 

I am committed to working with him and all of my colleagues interested in active forest management. We need to address these obstacles head-on, and we need to do it for the sake of all our forests 

and rural communities, not just those in selected States. 

Mr. Chairman, I’ll submit the remainder of my comments for the 

record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

Chairman Manchin, thank you for holding this hearing. 

I welcome each of our witnesses today including Senators Baucus and Tester. 

Today we have several Bureau of Land Management public domain land withdrawals that are important to our nation’s military readiness. 

I understand they are time sensitive so I am pleased we have been able to get 

these included in this hearing. 

There are also complex public land bills before us today... with important policy implications for our land management agencies that we have to look at very 

carefully. 

I would like to note Senator Flake’s bill to renew and update nationwide Stewardship Contracting authority for the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

I applaud him for his efforts. 

I commend my colleagues, Senator Tester and Chairman Wyden... for offering 

constructive legislative responses to the dysfunctional status quo we all agree exists 

with respect to forest management. 

It is my hope that S. 37 and S. 1301 will serve a greater purpose. 

I hope these bills act to advance the debate over forest management nationwide. 

I hope they encourage a bipartisan solution to address the systemic 

problems... that are preventing the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management from getting timber out of our forests. 

Senator Wyden, our Committee Chairman said at our June 26 Forest Management Hearing that there are three main obstacles to getting more timber harvested: 

(1) funding, 

(2) planning and NEPA and; 

(3) litigation. 

I think he is absolutely right. 

I am committed to working with him, and all of my colleagues interested in active 

forest management. 

We need to address these obstacles head on. 

And we need to do it for the sake of all our forests and rural communities, not 

just those in Montana and Oregon. 

Legislating forest management state by state is at best bad policy, at its worst 

it could unravel the national forest system. 

This has been well-researched by Dr. Martin Nie, a professor at the University 

of Montana. 

5 

Dr. Nie’s research led him to the conclusion that Congress and the Forest Service 

should oppose forest-specific legislation. He noted that most of the challenges faced 

are systemic not place-based and deserve a national-level response. 

I would like to submit Dr. Nie’s previous testimony from 2009 on Senator Testor’s 

bill and his 2011 Environmental Law Reporter article analyzing place-based national forest legislation to include both Senator Tester and Senator Wyden’s bills. 

Some of the bills we are considering today also create more wilderness. 

Currently, there are 110 million acres of land have been added to the wilderness 

system. 

Additionally, tens of millions of acres are protected as ‘roadless’ by the Forest 

Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

In my view, we need to a more balanced approach between adding lands to the 

wilderness system and... Congress releasing lands the agencies currently manage as wilderness study areas. 

Despite Congress having the sole authority to designate wilderness... this Administration and the environmental community continue to manage our public lands 

as ‘‘defacto’’ wilderness. 

A good example of defacto wilderness management is the recent federal court decision in Montana upholding a Forest Service ban on motorized activities in ‘‘recommended wilderness areas.’’ 

This decision could have far reaching implications for management of recommended wilderness areas identified in forest plans all across the country. 

This is very troubling to me and something I am taking very seriously. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to restore the balance between environmental protection, 

resource development, and access for recreation on our public lands. 

As an example, I would like to submit for the record the International Mountain 

Bicycling Association’s comments on S. 37. 

Their comments illustrate how wilderness designations further limit public access 

for recreation. 

The federal land agencies must maintain their core mission of multiple use. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

At this time, do we have any members—Senator Heinrich, do you 

have any statements to be made at this time? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make a 

short statement about S. 753, and I certainly appreciate this hearing very much. 

Earlier this year, I introduced S. 753 with Senator Tom Udall 

and Senator John Cornyn to reflect a 3-party agreement between 

White Sands Missile Range, Fort Bliss, and the Bureau of Land 

Management. This bill allows for land transfers and withdrawals 

that will add critical safety, security, and planning buffers to White 

Sands Missile Range and Fort Bliss. It will play an integral role 

in accomplishing their national security missions. 

Specifically, this bill would transfer 5,100 acres of land from the 

Bureau of Land Management to the Army in order to provide a 

critical safety and security buffer to NASA’s White Sands Test Facility and the Department of Defense Aerospace Data Facility, 

which are both important tenants to the White Sands Missile 

Range. 

It transfers to 2,050 acres of land in Fillmore Canyon from the 

Army to the Bureau of Land Management to create a boundary 

that’s more clearly identifiable to the public to prevent accidental 

trespass onto Fort Bliss. 

Finally, it will preclude the BLM from selling or exchanging approximately 35,000 acres of land in order to prevent incompatible 

development for the Fort Bliss Dona Ana Range complex and trainVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
6 

ing areas. This land is still accessible to the public for recreation, 

for grazing, transportation, and all the other existing uses. 

I think I’ll wrap it up there, and just jump into the questions 

after we get started. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Senator Flake. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ARIZONA 

Senator FLAKE. I just want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

consideration of this piece of legislation, particularly S. 1300, to 

renew and update the stewardship contracting. 

I want to thank Senator Baucus for his support of that legislation, and others on this panel, and I look forward to hearing about 

it. 

Also, 2 other Arizona bills are being considered as well. That’s 

much appreciated. Thanks. 

I yield back. 

Senator MANCHIN. Senator Risch, at this time, do you have any 

statements, opening statements? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to thank Senator Tester for his efforts on the 

Mount Jefferson bill. 

In Idaho, we love Mount Jefferson because, in the wintertime, 

you have to come through Idaho to get to Mount Jefferson, which 

is a good thing. The southern part of the Mount Jefferson area is 

heavily used by Idahoans, particularly for snowmobiling. 

We’ve had this bill here—how many years, Jon? Is this the second year? Too many years. 

But in any event, the Idaho people were very concerned that we 

don’t have that southern half closed to snowmobiling. Senator Tester and I have discussed this ad nauseam and have come to an 

agreement on it. 

Unfortunately, the bill that was reprinted this year did not have 

the agreement in it. As I understand it, we’re going to go back to 

the portion of the bill dealing with southern Mount Jefferson that 

we agreed on previously. If that’s the case, I’m in. 

So, thank you very much, Senator. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MANCHIN. Senator Cantwell, do you have an opening 

statement? 

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

FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for holding this hearing. I hate to hold up my colleagues, but I do 

have an important piece of legislation that’s on the agenda. 

So I did want to mention that Senator Murray and I both introduced an urgently needed piece of legislation, which is very important to the Pacific Northwest. It is the Green Mountain Lookout 

that sits on a portion of the Glacier Peak Wilderness area and ofVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
7 

fers spectacular views of Glacier Peak to the south and Mt. Baker 

to the north. 

Built in 1933 by the Civilian Conservation Corps, it served as 

part of a fire detection system for the North Cascades. The lookouts 

served this role for more than 50 years. 

For these historic roles, the Forest Service nominated the Green 

Mountain Lookout, along with 7 other lookouts, to be part of the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

In 1987, the National Park Service recognized this historic value 

and officially listed it in the National Register. 

Today, it’s one of only 16 of the original 90 that existed. It’s a 

very, very popular destination for many hikers. 

The Forest Service is currently working on an Environmental 

Impact Statement to remove the lookout next summer based on a 

court decision and things that we’re moving through. 

So I can’t imagine that Congress really intended to remove or destroy these kinds of historic hiking attractions when it passed in 

1964 Wilderness Act. So my colleague and I would like to preserve 

the lookout on Green Mountain. 

This has been endorsed by the Wilderness Society, the National 

Trust for Historic Preservation, the Nature Conservancy, the Back 

Country Horsemen of America, the Mountaineers, and a variety of 

other groups and organizations. 

So I look forward to hearing any input on that, which is also on 

the docket today. 

I thank the chairman. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you very much. 

At this time, we’ll hear from our Senators. 

Senator Baucus, if you’d like to start? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Heinrich, 

Senator Cantwell, Senator Barrasso, Senator Risch, Senator Flake, 

thank you all for being here. 

I’m also very pleased to hear Chairman Wyden and also you, 

Senator Flake, talk about stewardship contracting and the importance of it. I might say, in Montana, it’s extremely important. I 

think it’s flagging a little bit, and we need to reenergize stewardship contracting. Thank you for pushing it. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on the Rocky 

Mountain Front Heritage Act. 

The late novelist Bud Guthrie described how ‘‘the feel of the 

country settled in on the Rocky Mountain Front, the great emptiness and age of it, the feel of westward mountains old as time, and 

plains wide as forever, and the blue sky flung across.’’ 

Nowhere do the Rocky Mountains proclaim themselves more 

spectacularly than in Montana. I might say that photograph here 

on my left does not do it justice. It is very difficult to photograph 

the feel and the majesty, as you all know, of landscape. It’s much, 

much more dramatic than that photograph to your left. 

Just think, when settlers came across America, near Jon Tester’s 

place near Big Sandy, and saw those mountains just explode out 

of the plains. It’s incredible. It’s amazing. What awe they must 

8 

have had for Mother Nature, for God, for life, who they are. It’s astounding. That does not do it justice. 

The Front is one of the most breathtaking examples of the Rockies in the West. It is the long staccato wall where the plains, washboard flat for hundreds of miles, as I mentioned, dash themselves 

against the ramparts of the Rockies. Instead of long foothills, we 

have an astonishing right angle just leap out of the plains. 

This last spring, I drove down Highway 89 along the Front, passing the reefs and peaks, Guthrie here, Castle, Sawtooth, like old 

friends at full salute. From these peaks, you can peer out across 

the Big Sky Country, way far up west into the forks of the Sun 

River, the finest elk country in the West, almost up to Spotted 

Bear Pass and the Three Sisters swinging their legs over the Chinese Wall. 

No wonder here, Guthrie said, the soul of man finds a place. 

That spring day happened to be the migration season for snow 

geese. Tens of thousands of geese flew above us near Freezeout 

Lake, bleaching the blue sky on the way north. 

That’s a photograph over there of some of the geese. I’m not exaggerating. That day, the sky was just covered with geese. They 

blotted out the sun, almost like the eclipse of the sun. 

Tens of thousands of snow geese flying along the Front, north to 

feeding grounds and breeding up in Canada and Alaska. 

Now, Haystack Butte tells you something important about the 

Front. Part of this land was settled. People live here. They grow 

crops and livestock. They raise haystacks. They raise families. 

They share the simple reason I’m here this morning. Montanans 

want to keep the Front the way it is. It’s our heritage. 

I first introduced the Heritage Act 2 years ago on behalf of thousands of Montanans who support this made-in-Montana bill. This 

is not a top-down bill. This is a bottom-up bill. 

In the best tradition of public lands, Montanans from all walks 

of life came up with the Heritage Act themselves. I’m determined 

to bring it to the finish line. 

It’s good policy today that ensures our moral obligation for tomorrow, for our kids and our grandkids. 

Montanans worked for hours gathering support, walking trails 

and pastures together, redrawing boundaries, draining coffee cups, 

draining beer taps in towns like Choteau and Augusta, putting this 

bill together. I’m so honored to carry the work of these rugged folks 

forward. 

They came up with a good balance, 200 acres of conservation 

management area, 67,000 acres of wilderness additions in places 

already managed that way—already managed as wilderness—and 

a plan to block the invasion of noxious weeds like spotted 

knapweed that damage forage for livestock. 

This bill is about jobs. It protects public land for sportsmen who 

spend $10 million locally each year. 

It limits road building but protects current motorized use. 

The version introduced is this Congress further strengths protections for ranchers who’ve been responsible stewards in the land. 

Most importantly, it rewards Montanans for being willing together to write their own destiny rather than reacting to change 

when it comes. 

9 

The Heritage Act will keep the Front the way we want it, the 

way it is. 

I thank you and I urge your support. I also want to state my very 

strong support for Senator Tester’s Forest Jobs bill, and urge the 

committee to move forward with Limestone Hills withdrawal. For 

those who don’t know, Limestone Hills is in Montana. It’s between 

Townsend and Helena, Montanan. It’s important to our Guard in 

our State. 

Also support for Senator Flake’s stewardship legislation. He’s on 

the right track, and I hope we can move that forward, too. 

Thank you. 

Senator MANCHIN. Senator Tester. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. I want to thank you, Senator Manchin, and Senator Barrasso as well, as well as the rest of members on this committee, as well as Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Murkowski for allowing us to have this hearing today, I very much appreciate it, on the Forests Jobs and Recreation Act. 

I think each one of you know the need to break through the gridlock that has characterized forest management over the years. 

Mr. Chairman, like Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski, you 

understand the importance of bridging the divide in order to get 

things done. 

Ranking Member Barrasso, I know these issues are as important 

in Wyoming as they are in Montana. 

It is the same spirit of compromise and the urgent need to encourage the timber economy of Western Montana that I offer the 

Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. This Forest Jobs and Recreation 

Act is a product of a lot of diverse interests working together to 

craft a bill that breaks through the gridlock, and that’s good for 

Montana and good for the country. 

Business owners, loggers, conservationists, sportsmen, sportswomen, have put aside their differences to support Montana’s timber economy, to restore fish and wildlife habitat, and to protect 

some of this country’s most breathtaking landscapes. 

It is important to note that many of the stakeholders that helped 

craft this bill used to only meet in the courtroom. Now they meet 

to find common-sense solutions that create jobs and protect Montana’s outdoor heritage. 

The Forest Jobs bill would also help mitigate the devastating 

wildfires that are becoming all too common in the West by actually 

allowing us to cut some trees again. 

I look at this subcommittee and I see many members whose 

States grapple with the challenges brought on by wildfires. 

In Montana alone, last year, we had more than 1 million acres 

burn, and more than a half of dozen fires are burning right now. 

We can all agree that something needs to be done to break 

through the gridlock and responsibly manage our forest so the 

West isn’t up in smoke again. 

By mandating responsible logging of 100,000 acres in our National Forests in Montana, we’ll reduce the amount of hazardous 

fuels that fires feed on. As I have said in the past, this bill is a 

10 

testament to what is possible when diverse collaboration comes together in good faith and looks for common ground on tough issues. 

Now we’ve received a lot of great input from folks while traveling 

the State. Their ideas and feedback have led to changes in this bill 

to make sure it works for Montanans. 

Nearly 10,000 acres of the proposed wilderness were dropped due 

to mineral potential in the East Pioneer Mountains. There’s a 

sheep trailing provision that will allow mechanized transportation 

through proposed Snowcrest wilderness areas, so that local ranchers can herd their sheep to existing grazing allotments. 

I’m proud to be a part of this made-in-Montana legislation, and 

I look forward to working with all of you to provide my State’s timber and recreation industries with the tools they need. The timber 

industry and our forests can’t wait any longer. 

If I might say, this timber management, everybody on this panel 

understands that the Forest Service needs some tools. This is a tool 

the Forest Service can use, and I think you can see it in their testimony. 

Some would say that wilderness is a waste of time and doesn’t 

create anything. The fact is that wilderness isn’t. Wilderness is 

something that creates jobs in Montana. We’re recruiting business 

because of our wilderness climate. So it helps a lot. 

Some would say that cutting trees is unnecessary because we’re 

not building enough houses anymore to cut any trees. That’s gobbledygook. The fact of the matter is that if we can keep our timber 

industry going, if we can keep those mills that are going in our 

State right now, we can have a partner in managing our forests 

while creating jobs, while creating wood, while storing carbon in 

houses, which will also help climate change. 

Some would say that the sportsman stuff is overrated. Look, in 

this country, sportsmen’s issues raise billions and billions and billions of economic. This bill will help sportsmen be able to have 

clean fisheries, better habitat for elk and deer, and, quite frankly, 

better opportunities for snowmobilers and other motorized users. 

So that’s the crux of this. For more than 30 years, for more than 

30 years, everybody has been losing on our National Forests. This 

is a breakthrough. 

As Senator Barrasso said in his opening statement, this can be 

used as a template throughout the West, but we have to get this 

implemented first. 

Thank you for that. 

I also want to say that I’m a proud sponsor of Senator Barrasso’s 

legislation that he just described. He is absolutely correct. The 

Rocky Mountain Front is one of the most incredible places in the 

world, and we need to make sure that it’s there for future generations. I want to applaud his leadership on this issue. It just didn’t 

happen this year by the way. He’s been working on this since he 

came to the U.S. Senate a few years back. 

The other thing I’d like to say is that the Limestone Hills Withdrawal bill that is before this committee is very, very important. 

It’s important for 2 things. 

First of all, the BLM doesn’t need this headache. The Army 

needs this to be taken care of, because there’s a range there, 

unexploded ordnance and other things that are very, very imporVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
11 

tant. The third thing is there’s a mine in there. So it’s very important that they’re able to move forward with their ability to create 

jobs. 

So this is all very, very important. I very much appreciate your 

folks’ ability to take a look. You have a busy schedule today with 

13 bills. These are 3 bills that I consider very important. 

Thank you for your courtesy. 

Senator MANCHIN. Are there any questions for our Senators from 

the committee? 

If not, thank you so much. 

Senator BAUCUS. Can we ask questions? 

Senator MANCHIN. Senator, with your seniority, you can ask anything you want. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much for getting these bills 

passed. Thank you. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you so much. 

We will have our next panel now come forward. 

First of all, I want to thank our panel for being here. But before 

we get started with our panel, I would, at this time, extend privileges to Senator Risch, who has comments to make and a statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. RISCH, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM IDAHO 

Senator RISCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I 

apologize but I have another commitment, as many of us do. 

I want to speak very briefly about H.R. 876. It was sponsored by 

Representative Mike Simpson and has been for some time. 

H.R. 876 is an important issue in the State of Idaho. Back when 

the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the SelwayBitterroot Wilderness areas in Idaho were created, they were done 

at a time when Congress was moving forward very quickly on wilderness areas. Sometimes, issues fell through the cracks, and this 

bill addresses one of those issues. 

We have in these wilderness areas a number of ranches and 

recreation facilities, lodges, if you would, along the Salmon River 

and other places. These places use water in various ways, sometimes to generate electricity from a very small type of generator, 

other times for irrigation and what have you. 

When the bill was created, it did not provide for the continuation 

of these facilities. They should have been grandfathered in the bill; 

they weren’t. 

This particular bill recognizes those facilities, extends to them 

the grandfather rights that they should have had, and allows the 

private owners to continue to use those. 

I’m really not aware of any pushback on these. It was an oversight when the bills were passed. Congress isn’t very good at fixing 

mistakes that they make sometimes in a bill. This is a correction 

and should be done. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Senator. 

At this time we have our panelists, and we’d like to start with 

Katherine Hammack, if you will. 

12 

Katherine, your statement, we have for the record your complete 

statement, so if you want to summarize your positions on the bills 

that pertain to you. 

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE G. HAMMACK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, (INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT) U.S. ARMY 

Ms. HAMMACK. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Chairman 

Manchin, and other distinguished members of the committee, for 

the opportunity to talk about 3 bills right here that all pertain to 

withdrawal of public lands in Montana and New Mexico for use by 

the Army. 

We support S. 753 for the withdrawal of over 42,000 acres of 

public lands adjacent to Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range 

in New Mexico. 

Senator Heinrich, thank you for your support of the Army and 

the important training mission there. 

We also support the intent of the Limestone Hills Training Area 

Withdrawal Act, S. 1169, and thank Senator Tester for his support. 

The Army does coordinate with the mining operation, as the Senator mentioned. We support allowing existing mining claims to proceed in development and in accordance with previously approved 

plans. However, we have one significant concern with the language 

in the bill. 

We object to language that would expand the rights for mineral 

disposition or exploration by allowing claimants to amend or relocate mining claims, and reinstate expired claims. This provision 

would give unprecedented latitude to claimants over lands that 

may be required for military training, including live fire impact 

areas. It would severely limit the ability of the Army to plan and 

conduct training on the property. 

Therefore, the Army objects to allowing mining claimants to operate without regard for withdrawal and reservation. 

Of note on the Limestone Hills Training Area Withdrawal Act, 

our rights to use this property or our authority to use this property 

expire in March 2014. So unless this legislation is passed, it will 

have severe impact to the Montana National Guard. 

Finally, the Army supports S. 1309 and thanks Senator Wyden 

for introducing it at the administration’s request. This contains the 

administration’s fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization 

Act legislative proposal for the Limestone Hills withdrawal. 

So I want to keep it short. You do have my written statement. 

I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hammack follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHERINE G. HAMMACK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE

ARMY, (INSTALLATIONS, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT) U.S. ARMY

Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso and other distinguished Members of the Committee for the opportunity to provide comments on S. 

1169, legislation to withdraw public lands in Montana for use by the Army, and S. 

753, legislation to withdraw public lands in New Mexico. 

Limestone Hills Training Area Withdrawal Act of 2013 

S. 1169, the Limestone Hills Training Area Withdrawal Act, would withdraw and 

reserve approximately 18,644 acres of federal land that comprises the Limestone 

Hills Training Area (LHTA) for use by the Army, and assign primary management 

13 

of the property from the Department of the Interior to the Department of the Army 

for a 25-year period. 

The lands comprising the LHTA are public domain lands, currently under the control of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The legislation would enable continued training on the land by the Montana National Guard (MTNG) and other active 

and reserve components of the armed forces that have used the property for training 

purposes for several decades. In order for the Army to continue occupying the property, the land must be ‘‘withdrawn from the public domain,’’ which can only be accomplished by an Act of Congress. Unless legislation is passed, the Army’s current 

authority to use the property will end in March 2014. 

The LHTA is operated by the MTNG and is their only large-scale live fire and 

maneuver training area. It is a critically important training asset for the MTNG, 

used by approximately 3,800 Guardsmen annually, for diverse training involving 

small arms, crew-served weapons, mortars, and demolition activities. The LHTA 

represents a realistic, open training environment within a reasonable travel distance for most Guardsmen and for equipment, which is maintained off site. This regional training asset allows us to avoid the expenditures of time, money, and fuel 

that would result if training had to be located elsewhere. 

The LHTA is also used by the active and reserve components of the other 

branches of the military and is made available in some cases for use by other federal, state, and local agencies. Some 10,000 personnel from other services use the 

site each year. Many of those personnel are from special operations units who are 

preparing for rotations in Afghanistan and other forward locations. The LHTA is especially valuable because of the variety of training conducted there, which is reflected in the number and diversity of organizations that train there. 

There are a number of other, non-federal activities that occur at the LHTA, and 

the Army is respectful of the multiple uses of the property. We are particularly 

proud of the collaborative relationship among the MTNG, the BLM, and the other 

stakeholders in the area. The Army closely coordinates with the operators of an active limestone mine within the withdrawal area. The Army firmly supports allowing 

existing mining claims to proceed to development in accordance with previously approved plans of operations, and we are confident this can occur. The MTNG plans 

meticulously to ensure that training and mining operations are held at a safe distance, and that any unexploded ordnance (UXO) is removed from the mining area. 

Training activities are also deconflicted with grazing operations, wildlife habitat, 

and use of two public roads that traverse the property. There is a proven track 

record of accommodating multiple uses of the property while fulfilling military training and mission needs. 

The MTNG is party to an existing agreement with the BLM and with Graymont 

Western US, Inc., the current mine operator. This agreement specifies the procedures that the parties follow to coordinate and deconflict their respective activities. 

As provided for in the legislation, the Army is prepared to enter into a new agreement to update those procedures during the withdrawal period. We do not foresee 

any difficulty in maintaining procedures to ensure that training and readiness are 

maintained while accommodating the needs of other parties. 

While the Army supports withdrawal of the property to enable its continued use 

for military training, the Army has significant concerns with certain language in the 

bill that would legislatively expand certain rights for mineral disposition or exploration. The Army opposes inclusion of Subsection 4(a)(3), which would provide an 

opportunity for certain mining claimants to amend or relocate mining claims and 

to reinstate expired claims. This provision would give unprecedented latitude to 

these claimants, which could impact land required for military training—including 

live fire impact areas. This would severely limit the ability of the Army to plan and 

conduct training on the property. 

The Army supports allowing existing mining claims to proceed to development in 

accordance with previously approved plans of operations and in accordance with applicable law and regulation. However, the Army strongly objects to this Subsection 

as it would grant particular mining claimants the ability to operate without regard 

for the withdrawal and reservation. There is no clear precedent for this provision, 

which stands in opposition to the normal purpose and effect of military land withdrawals. By granting unique privileges to certain mining claimants, this provision 

is also contrary to the normal operation of mining laws and regulations, which provide equal treatment for all claimants who are similarly situated. 

The LHTA is an important asset for the readiness of the armed forces. If the land 

is not withdrawn, Limestone Hills will be returned to the BLM and the MTNG 

would be forced to conduct its primary training events at other locations. Changing 

training venues could markedly increase the costs to the MTNG over current expenditures. Additionally, UXO contamination would need to be mitigated if the 

14 

range were closed. Since funding for UXO removal from active ranges is controlled 

and prioritized differently from funding for cleanup of closed ranges, if the range 

is closed, Army priorities and schedules for UXO removal would be affected. We appreciate the effort to keep this important training asset open and available. 

Noting the strong objection to Subsection 4(a)(3), we support S. 1169 with the exclusion of that provision. The Department of Defense has submitted a legislative 

proposal to the Congress for consideration that would also address the withdrawal 

requirements for LHTA. The proposal, introduced as S. 1309, is fully coordinated 

and agreed to within the Administration, and would provide urgent and necessary 

authority to continue training and operations. 

S. 753, a bill to provide for national security benefits for White Sands Missile Range 

and Fort Bliss 

The other legislation I would like to discuss is S. 753, which involves the withdrawal of 42,700 acres of public lands in New Mexico and reservation of 5,100 of 

those acres for use by the Department of the Army. The bill would also transfer administration of 2,050 acres from the Army to the Department of Interior. These 

lands are directly adjacent to Fort Bliss and the White Sands Missile Range 

(WSMR). As the two largest military installations in the United States, Fort Bliss 

and WSMR consist of nearly 5,000 square miles of land that accommodates military 

training, research, development, and test and evaluation. In addition to Army test 

activities, WSMR hosts several other federal tenants, including NASA and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). 

A portion of the withdrawal, totaling 37,600 acres, is adjacent to the Dona Ana 

tank gunnery and artillery range complex at Fort Bliss. Training in this location 

can generate significant noise, vibration, and dust, which can all migrate off the installation. Army analysis has determined that noise levels occurring in the area to 

be withdrawn are higher than is recommended for various categories of use and development. The Army is concerned that residential and commercial development 

may occur in that area. The legislation would ensure that incompatible development 

does not occur in that area. In doing so, the legislation would establish an enduring 

buffer for the live-fire ranges in the Dona Ana training area. 

A separate 5,100 acre portion of the land that would be withdrawn by this legislation is adjacent to tenant operations at WSMR: the NASA White Sands Test Facility; the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Tracking and Data Relay Satellite Systems facility; and the NRO Aerospace Data Facility—Southwest. These operations 

are co-located and have special security and safety requirements. The land set aside 

for their use, while large enough to handle the mission, no longer resides in a remote location. As with many locations in the southwest, this area has seen a large 

increase in population in recent years. The facilities sit close to the border of a public access area, and a number of security incidents in the area have highlighted the 

value of having a controlled stand-off area. This legislation would reserve for military control a one-mile stand-off area between those tenant activities and the public 

access area, which would improve the security for these facilities. 

The bill would also return administration of a small area at Fort Bliss from the 

Department of the Army to the Department of the Interior. The 2,050 acre parcel, 

previously withdrawn for military use, would be transferred to the BLM. This parcel 

has relatively limited training value for Fort Bliss due to its limited access from the 

installation. The Army does not object to the return of this land to BLM, but we 

offer one technical comment on the provision. Since the parcel was originally withdrawn by Public Land Order 833, a partial legislative revocation of that Public Land 

Order would ensure a clear interpretation of congressional intent. 

The Army has worked cooperatively with the Bureau of Land Management and 

other neighbors and stakeholders in addressing land use issues in this area. We appreciate the cooperation and interest of all parties who support the various missions 

at Fort Bliss and WSMR. The Army supports this legislation, which would protect 

those important national security missions. 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these topics, I look forward to any questions you have. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you so much. 

I might state that I’m so sorry that I did not introduce your full 

title: Assistant Secretary of the Army, Installations of Energy and 

Environment, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, U.S. 

Army. 

Thank you so much. 

15 

At this time we’re going to hear from the Hon. Roger Natsuhara. 

He’s the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER M. NATSUHARA, ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS AND 

ENVIRONMENT) U.S. NAVY 

Mr. NATSUHARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. I want to thank you for holding this hearing. 

I’m pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Department 

of Navy’s need for the Land Withdrawal legislation addressed in S. 

1309. 

I also want to thank Senator Wyden for introducing the bill on 

behalf of the Administration. 

I would like to make just a couple brief comments about why we 

need this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for entering my 

full written statement into the record. 

The existing military land withdrawals for Naval Air Weapons 

Station China Lake and the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range expire in October 2014 and require congressional action. 

Signed legislation is required this year to preserve the very important testing, development, and training missions we conduct at 

those bases. 

The proposed expansion of Twentynine Palms is critical to national defense. Although Twentynine Palms has served the Marine 

Corps well since in 1940s, lack of sufficient training space inhibits 

us from properly training Marine Expedition Brigades today and in 

the future. 

The preferred alternative identified in the February 2013 Record 

of Decision on Twentynine Palms represents the minimum area required to support MEB training and is a product of extensive public outreach efforts that incorporated public input. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Natsuhara follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER M. NATSUHARA, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF

THE NAVY (ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT) U.S. NAVY

Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the continuing need 

for the Department of the Navy’s land withdrawals in the Southwest. 

A number of Department of Navy installations are located wholly or partially on 

public lands that have been withdrawn from the public domain for military purposes. Since the passage of the Engle Act, such military land withdrawals exceeding 

5,000 acres must be authorized in statute. The military land withdrawals for Naval 

Air Weapons Station, China Lake and the Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery 

Range expire next year and can only be renewed by an Act of Congress. China Lake 

supports the Navy’s research, development, acquisition, testing and evaluation of 

cutting edge weapons systems for the warfighter. It consists of over 1.1 million acres 

of land of which over 90 percent are withdrawn public lands. The installation supports approximately 9000 hours of aircraft and weapons training annually and is 

of critical importance in maintaining national military readiness. The Department 

has no viable alternative location where it can perform the testing, training and operations that are conducted at China Lake. 

The aerial gunnery range located in the Chocolate Mountains consists of about 

459,000 acres of which approximately 227,000 acres are withdrawn public lands. 

The range supports Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force aircrew training in air combat maneuvering and tactics; airborne laser system operations; air-to-air gunnery 

and air-to-ground bombing, rocketry, and strafing. The range is the primary range 

16 

for the Marine Corps’ advanced aviation tactics school, serves east coast Marine 

aviation units by providing capability not available on the east coast, and is the primary ‘‘backyard’’ range for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing. Navy Special Warfare 

units also use this gunnery range to conduct ground combat training. 

In addition to the renewal of existing military land withdrawals at China Lake 

and the Chocolate Mountains, the Department of Navy requests a new land withdrawal at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in Twenty-nine Palms, CA to 

meet current and future training requirements. Although ground operations are 

winding down in Afghanistan, the world is still a very uncertain place, with the 

threat environment only growing more complex. As the Nation’s premier ‘‘first responders’’ in conflict, the Marine Corps must remain nimble and flexible enough to 

engage the enemy with the appropriately sized and right mix of forces on the battlefield. 

This withdrawal is required to expand the existing training environment and provide sufficient maneuver area, both land and airspace, to conduct sustained, combined arms, live-fire and maneuver field training for Marine Expeditionary Brigade 

(MEB)-sized Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTF). A MEB-the primary forcible 

entry contingency response force-consists of three battalion task forces and associated command, aviation, and combat logistics support elements. 

MEBs must be capable of performing a variety of missions throughout the spectrum of conflict because they will encounter complex situations containing asymmetric threats, nonlinear battlefields, and unclear delineation between combatants 

and noncombatants. To overcome these challenges and operate effectively, MEBs 

must train in a realistic setting, which the current installation configuration cannot 

provide. Twenty-nine Palms, established in the 1950s and sized for the weapons and 

tactics of the time, is simply not big enough to accommodate the way the Marine 

Corps must train to fight today’s battles. 

To accomplish this, the Department intends to purchase private and state lands 

adjacent to the Combat Center, pursue the establishment and modification of Special Use Airspace through the Federal Aviation Administration and request a military land withdrawal of additional public lands. Because of the amount of acreage 

being requested, this land withdrawal also requires an Act of Congress. We recognize the public’s keen interest in retaining access to Johnson Valley for recreational 

purposes. Our land withdrawal request-developed through public input-preserves 

public access to Johnson Valley, the area prized by the off-highway vehicle recreation enthusiasts due to its unique terrain features. Our withdrawal request represents a reasonable solution for preserving public access while providing space for 

required military training. 

As required by the current law, the Department has worked with the Department 

of Interior, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Federal Aviation Administration in preparation for these withdrawals over the last several years. The Administration has submitted a legislative proposal through which these land withdrawals 

would be enacted as part of Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The need to enact legislation and authorize these withdrawals is urgent. As our 

Department of Defense colleagues have stated in previous testimony earlier this 

year, the consequences of failing to enact withdrawal legislation could, in some of 

these instances, cause severe impacts on DOD and the military Services if we are 

forced to stop training and testing. In all cases, DOD has a compelling need for the 

withdrawn land in order to successfully conduct its testing, training, missions and 

operations with the capabilities and competence that it must maintain. 

Our Nation’s Navy and Marine Corps operate globally, which includes having the 

ability to project power, effect deterrence, and provide humanitarian aid whenever 

and wherever needed to protect the interests of the United States. To do this, however, requires forces who train as they would fight and weapons that deliver as 

promised. We ask for your support in giving our men and women what they need 

to prevail. I look forward to working with you to sustain the war fighting readiness 

and quality of life for the most formidable expeditionary fighting force in the world. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today and I welcome your questions. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you so much, sir. 

Now we have Mr. Ned Farquhar—pretty close—Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior. 

Thank you, sir. 

17 

STATEMENT OF NED FARQUHAR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify 

today on behalf of the Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management. I’m going to very briefly summarize our position on 8 bills 

and submit my statements for the record. 

The first is that the department supports S. 37, the Jobs and 

Recreation Act, and S. 364, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage 

Act, as they apply to lands administered by the BLM. We defer to 

the Department of Agriculture Forest Service as these bills apply 

to the National Forest system lands as well. 

Both of these bills provide conservation designations for special 

areas in the State of Montana. Permanent designation in these 

lands ensures that hunters, hikers, anglers, and other 

recreationists will continue to enjoy these areas of southwestern 

Montana and the Rocky Mountain Front. 

On S. 1300, this stewardship bill, we would extend BLM stewardship contracting authority, which expires this year. This important authority allows the BLM to efficiently and flexibly accomplish 

needed restoration work in concert with local agencies and organizations. 

The department supports the extension and would support the 

bill if amended to address some technical concerns. 

On S. 343, the Three Kids Mine, the Secretary would be directed 

to convey 948 acres of Federal land at the abandoned Three Kids 

Mine site to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency in Nevada. In 

exchange, Henderson would pay the United States for the value of 

this land minus the estimated cost of cleanup and adjacent private 

parcels. Henderson would then be responsible for cleanup at the 

site. 

The department supports the goals of 343 and welcomes the opportunity to work with the committee to make modifications to the 

bill as outlined in our fuller testimony. 

On H.R. 507, the Pascua Yaqui bill, which provides for the conveyance of 20 acres of public land near Tucson for the Pascua 

Yaqui Tribe, the department supports holding the lands in trust for 

the tribe, but has concerns about provisions regarding a private 

lease on unrelated lands and its implications for the Secretary to 

exercise the trust responsibilities that the Interior Department has 

with tribal partners. We look forward to resolving this and other 

issues in the bill. 

We appreciate the importance of the military installations that 

we’re talking about today for the security of the Nation, and we 

support the multiple missions of our Armed Forces. We’re proud to 

work closely with the Department of Defense and the branches represented today to offer public lands to support military readiness, 

training, and testing, and assist the military in meeting its mission 

needs. 

The main bill today, S. 1309, the Military Land Withdrawals Act 

introduced by Senator Wyden at the administration’s request, reflects our 2014 National Defense Authorization Act legislative proposal for the 3 public land withdrawals in California and the one 

18 

in Montana. We urge the Senate to pass this bill because these 

withdrawals are expiring soon. 

We also support S. 753, Senator Heinrich’s bill for the White 

Sands Missile Range in Fort Bliss in New Mexico. We’d like to 

work with the subcommittee and the sponsor on some technical 

modifications. 

The administration supports the continued use of the Limestone 

Hills training area in Montana by the Army. We have some concerns as expressed by our partners in the Army about some of the 

language in S. 1169 related to location and maintenance of mining 

claims. We look forward to working with you on those as well. 

Thank you for inviting us to be here today and to testify. We’ll 

be happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Farquhar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NED FARQUHAR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, LAND & 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

ON S. 37

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on S. 37, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports the 

wilderness designations on BLM-managed lands included in S. 37. 

The vast majority of the designations and other substantive provisions of S. 37 

apply to activities on National Forest System lands. We defer to the Department 

of Agriculture on those provisions. 

Background 

The southwestern corner of Montana is a critically important biological region. 

Linking the Greater Yellowstone Area and the Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho and 

Montana, these areas include important wildlife corridors that allow natural migrations of wildlife and help prevent species isolation. The Centennial Mountains are 

particularly noteworthy in this regard. The diversity of wildlife throughout this area 

is a strong indicator of its importance. Elk, mule deer, bighorn sheep, and moose, 

as well as their predators, such as bears, mountain lions and wolves, travel through 

this corner of Montana. 

Outstanding dispersed recreational opportunities abound in this region as well. A 

day’s hunting, hiking or fishing may be pursued in the splendid isolation of the 

steeply forested Ruby Mountains or in the foothill prairies of the Blacktail Mountains, areas largely untouched and pristine. For the more adventurous, Humbug 

Spires offers 65 million year-old rocks now eroded into fanciful spires, appreciated 

both for their climbing challenges as well as their scientific value. 

S. 37 

Title I of S. 37, applies solely to National Forest System Lands. Accordingly the 

Department of the Interior defers to the Department of Agriculture on those provisions. The majority of the designations in Title II of the bill are also on National 

Forest System Lands, and again we defer to the Department of Agriculture. 

Section 203(b) of S. 37 designates five wilderness areas on lands administered by 

the BLM in southwestern Montana: the Blacktail Mountains Wilderness (10,675 

acres), Centennial Mountains Wilderness (23,700 acres), Humbug Spires Wilderness 

(8,900 acres), East Fork Blacktail Wilderness (6,125 acres), and Ruby Mountains 

Wilderness (16,300 acres). The BLM supports these designations and we appreciate 

the Sponsor and the Committee working with us over the last year to refine these 

boundaries. All of these areas meet the definitions of wilderness in that they are 

areas where the land and its community of life are untrammeled. These areas have 

retained their primeval character and have been influenced primarily by the forces 

of nature, with outstanding opportunities for primitive recreation or solitude. We 

continue to encourage the Sponsor and the Committee to consider expanding the 

boundaries of the Centennial Mountains Wilderness in order to protect this area as 

a single coherent corridor, thereby providing enhanced benefit for the genetic diversity of the fauna inhabiting the Greater Yellowstone Area and the Bitterroot Range. 

Furthermore, we support the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the 660- 

acre Farlin Creek area to the Forest Service for inclusion in the adjoining 77,000 

acre East Pioneers Wilderness Area. 

19 

Section 205 of S. 37 proposes to fully release four BLM-managed wilderness study 

areas (WSAs) in Beaverhead and Madison counties from WSA management thereby 

allowing the consideration of a full range of multiple uses. In addition, in five other 

WSAs, some areas would be released from WSA status and other areas would be 

partially designated as wilderness, as noted above. In all, over 66,000 acres of WSAs 

are proposed for release, and nearly 66,000 acres are proposed for wilderness designation; we support these provisions. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to working cooperatively 

with the Congress to designate these special and biologically significant areas in 

this dramatic corner of Montana as wilderness. 

ON S. 343

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 343, the Three Kids Mine Remediation and Reclamation Act. Over the past several years, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has worked with the City of Henderson, Nevada, and other Nevada 

governmental entities in search of administrative remedies to redevelopment challenges at the abandoned Three Kids Mine. The Department of the Interior (Department) supports the goals of S. 343, which aims to provide legislated solutions to the 

issues surrounding the Three Kids Mine area and clears the way for its eventual 

redevelopment. However, the BLM would prefer that the Committee consider H.R. 

697 as introduced, which the Department supported in testimony on March 21, 

2013. 

Background 

The Three Kids Mine is an abandoned manganese mine and mill site on 314 acres 

of private land located along the south side of Lake Mead Drive, across the highway 

from Lake Las Vegas, in Henderson, Nevada. The mine and mill operated from 1917 

through 1961, in part providing steel-strengthening manganese to the defense industry and contributing to the United States’ efforts in World War I and II. Federal 

manganese reserves were stored in the area from the late 1950s through 2003. Approximately five years ago, the City of Henderson and Lakemoor Canyon, LLC, approached the BLM with a plan for redevelopment of the area if the site could be 

remediated. 

S. 343 directs that 948 acres of public lands adjacent to the private site be conveyed to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency, bringing the total size of the redevelopment project area to 1,262 acres. Of the 948 acres of public lands, 146 acres 

are contaminated and will require mine reclamation and environmental remediation. The most severe contamination appears to be on the 314 private acres where 

the mine and mill were located. No viable former operator or responsible party has 

been identified to remediate and reclaim the abandoned mine and mill site. Today, 

the site’s deep open pits, large volumes of mine overburden and tailings, mill facility 

ruins, and solid waste disposal areas pose risks to public safety and to human 

health and the environment. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP) identified the Three Kids Mine site as a high priority for the implementation of a comprehensive environmental investigation, remediation, and reclamation 

program. Representatives of the BLM, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of the Interior Solicitor’s Office have worked with the City of Henderson and 

representatives of developer Lakemoor Canyon to find solutions to the complex challenges of remediating this site. 

S. 343 

S. 343 designates the combined 314 acres of private land and 948 acres of public 

land as the 1,262-acre ‘‘Three Kids Mine Project Site’’ and provides for the conveyance of the public lands to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency. The legislation 

provides that fair market value for the Federal lands to be conveyed should be determined through standard appraisal practices, and that, subsequent to the determination, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) should determine the ‘‘reasonable 

approximate estimation of the costs to assess, remediate, and reclaim the Three 

Kids Mine Project Site.’’ The fair market value would be adjusted by deducting the 

cost estimate prepared by the Secretary. The Henderson Redevelopment Agency 

would pay the adjusted fair market value of the conveyed land to the United States, 

if any. 

The bill makes the conveyance of the land conditional upon the State of Nevada 

executing a mine remediation and reclamation agreement that obligates a party to 

perform the cleanup and which must be backed up by financial assurances. While 

the BLM has not established a range for the cost of cleanup, a proponent of the 

20 

transaction estimated the cost of remediating the public and private lands at between $300 million and $1.3 billion. While it is possible that the cost of remediating 

and reclaiming the entire project area might exceed the fair market value of the 

Federal land to be conveyed, the cost of the transaction will be known only after 

the Secretary completes the appraisal and remediation cost estimate process as outlined in the legislation. 

The Department supports innovative proposals to address the cleanup of the 

Three Kids Mine. We support the goals of S. 343, and prefer that the Committee 

consider H.R. 697 as introduced, which the Department supported in testimony on 

March 21, 2013. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on S. 343. 

S. 364

Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 364, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act which designates approximately 208,000 acres of Federal land in Montana 

as the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area. S. 364 primarily affects lands managed by the United States Forest Service (FS). The Department of 

the Interior defers to the Department of Agriculture regarding designations on lands 

managed by the FS. Over 13,000 of the acres proposed for special designation under 

the bill are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Department 

of the Interior supports the designation of the BLM lands as part of the Rocky 

Mountain Front Conservation Management Area (CMA). 

Background 

A unique and stunningly beautiful area in west-central Montana, the Rocky 

Mountain Front is located within Pondera, Teton, and Lewis and Clark Counties 

and contains unparalleled cultural, recreational, scenic, and biological resources. 

The lands administered by the BLM are dominated by massive limestone cliffs rising to an elevation of 7,700 feet and include grasslands, shrub lands, and limber 

and white-bark pine forests. Numerous wildlife and fish populations are supported 

by the highly varied topography and diverse vegetation that for generations has provided an outstanding experience for hunters, anglers and other recreationists. 

Huntable populations of elk, mule deer, big horn sheep, mountain goats and black 

bear all occur within the area being considered in the proposed legislation. In addition, threatened species including grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and bull trout are 

found on these BLM-managed lands. 

Congress recognized this priceless region in 2006 when it included the withdrawal 

of the entire area from new mining claims and mineral leasing in section 403(a) of 

Public Law 109-432. The BLM currently manages these lands for their important 

resource values as administratively-designated Outstanding Natural Areas (Blind 

Horse, Ear Mountain, Chute Mountain and Deep Creek-Battle Creek). 

S. 364 

S. 364 designates over 200,000 acres of federal land in Montana’s Rocky Mountain 

Front as the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area. Approximately 

13,000 acres of public land managed by the BLM would be included in that designation. Running along the eastern edge of the CMA, the lands managed by the BLM 

are largely closed to motorized access and include a trail system popular with those 

seeking a wilder recreational experience. 

The overall management scheme envisioned for the CMA is consistent with current BLM management of these lands. Under the provisions of S. 364, motorized 

vehicles within the CMA would be limited to roads and trails designated for their 

use and grazing would be allowed to continue where it currently exists. 

The BLM recommends that the bill be amended to specify that the BLM-managed 

lands within the CMA be included in the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation 

System (NLCS). The CMA is very similar to BLM’s National Conservation Areas 

(NCAs) and inclusion in the NLCS is appropriate. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 364 as it applies to lands 

managed by the BLM. 

ON S. 1300

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 1300, the Stewardship Contracting 

Reauthorization and Improvement Act. This legislation would provide for the reauthorization of stewardship contracting authority for the Bureau of Land ManageVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
21 

ment and the U.S. Forest Service. The Department supports the reauthorization of 

stewardship contracting authority, would support this legislation if amended, and 

would appreciate the opportunity to work with the sponsor to address a few technical concerns. 

Background 

Stewardship contracting authority was established for the BLM in the FY 2003 

Omnibus Appropriations Act and expires at the end of FY 2013. The authority allows the BLM to award contracts for forest health and restoration treatments, including hazardous fuels reductions, for a period of up to ten years and to use the 

value of timber or other forest products removed as an offset against the cost of 

services received. The BLM has enjoyed many successes in using stewardship contracting authority, thereby achieving goals for forest and woodland restoration and 

conducting both hazardous fuels reduction and habitat restoration treatments. In 

addition, stewardship contracts create jobs and revenue growth for local communities and help to protect local communities from wildland fire. From 2003 through 

2012, the BLM entered into over 400 stewardship contracts on approximately 

108,000 acres of BLM-managed lands. The BLM’s future strategy for stewardship 

projects includes increasing the size and duration of these projects. 

S. 1300 

S. 1300 extends until 2023 the authorization of stewardship contracting to achieve 

land management goals. The BLM supports stewardship contracting authority, as 

it provides the BLM with needed flexibility to work with contractors to achieve the 

agency’s land and forest health goals, and saves taxpayer resources because the 

value of forest products removed are used to offset the cost of the management action. In addition, changing the requirement to obligate cancellation costs upfront is 

inconsistent with budgeting principles and would understate the Government’s liability under the contract. Finally, the Administration has concerns about broad 

waivers of long-standing acquisition laws. 

Conclusion 

The Department looks forward to working with the sponsor and the Subcommittee 

on technical amendments. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I 

would be glad to answer any questions. 

ON H.R. 507

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 507, which provides that certain 

public lands in the Tucson, Arizona, area are declared to be held in trust by the 

United States for the benefit of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Tribe), subject to valid existing rights and to additional restrictions in the legislation. The Department of the 

Interior (Department) supports holding the lands in trust for the Tribe, but has concerns that the legislation makes the trust declaration subject to an additional, unrelated restriction. 

Background 

The Tribe’s lands are located in Pima County, near Tucson, Arizona, and are a 

combination of lands held in trust by the United States and lands purchased and 

held in fee by the Tribe. Some of these fee lands are the subject of pending ‘‘feeland-to-trust-land’’ applications with the Department. The Tucson Unified School 

District (District) operates the Hohokam School on private lands adjacent to the 

tribal lands. 

The Tribe is interested in acquiring two parcels of public land totaling approximately 20 acres. One parcel is an undeveloped, isolated 10-acre tract of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The second is a tract of approximately 10 acres that was patented under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act 

(R&PP) to the District, but never developed. 

H.R. 507 

H.R. 507 declares that approximately 20 acres of public land are to be held in 

trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe, subject to valid existing 

rights, following the approval of a private lease agreement by the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary). The lands include one 10-acre parcel of BLM-managed land 

(designated in the legislation as ‘‘Parcel A’’) and one 10-acre parcel patented to the 

District under the R&PP (designated ‘‘Parcel B’’). Parcel B’s trust status is deferred 

under the bill (Sec. 3(b)) subject to the District relinquishing its R&PP patent. In 

addition, under the bill (Sec. 3(c)), neither Parcel A nor Parcel B can be declared 

held in trust until the Secretary or a delegate approves and records a private lease 

agreement between the Tribe and the District for the operation of a regional transVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
22 

portation facility serving the Hohokam School located on restricted Indian land of 

the Tribe. The lease agreement pertains to lands unrelated to Parcel A or Parcel 

B. 

H.R. 507 references a map titled: PYT Land Department and dated Jan. 15, 2013. 

The BLM would welcome the opportunity to work with the bill sponsor and committee on a new land status map to accompany the legislation. 

The Department supports holding these two tracts of public land in trust for the 

Tribe. The Department has concerns that the additional requirement in Sec. 3(c), 

that the Secretary approve a private lease, on Tribal lands, for the District and the 

Tribe, as a precondition to holding in trust Parcel A and Parcel B—unrelated 

lands—may have implications for the Secretary’s exercise of trust responsibility to 

the Tribe. 

Finally, the Department notes that section 5 of H.R. 507 addresses the treatment 

of water rights that may be associated with the land to be taken into trust for the 

benefit of the Tribe. The Department has concerns regarding Section 5’s restriction 

on its ability to assert reserved water rights that the Tribe may have or claim on 

the two tracts of public land because it could restrict the ability of the Tribe and 

of the United States as trustee on behalf of the Tribe from fully asserting and protecting the water rights of the Tribe. 

Conclusion 

H.R. 507 represents an opportunity to improve land use for both the Tribe and 

the District on two isolated tracts of public land. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. I will be glad to answer any questions. 

ON S. 1169 AND S. 1309

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on three public land withdrawal bills, S. 753, S. 1169, and S. 1309. S. 753 seeks to achieve boundary solutions at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) and Fort Bliss in New Mexico. The 

Administration supports S. 753, but would like to work with the Subcommittee and 

the sponsor on technical modifications to the bill. S. 1169, the Limestone Hills 

Training Area Withdrawal Act, would withdraw approximately 18,644 acres of public land for use by the Department of the Army (Army) in Montana. The Administration supports the continued use of the lands identified in S. 1169 by the Army, 

but has concerns with the provision related to the location and maintenance of mining claims. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and the sponsor on 

modifications to address these concerns. S. 1309, the Military Land Withdrawals 

Act, was introduced at the Administration’s request. The bill reflects the Administration’s FY 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislative proposal 

for three public land withdrawals in California and one in Montana. The Administration urges the Senate to pass S. 1309 to support military use of the lands at 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), Naval Air Weapons Station 

(NAWS) China Lake, Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) 

Twentynine Palms, and Limestone Hills Training Area. 

Background 

Public lands are managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) through the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Public land withdrawals are formal lands actions that set aside, withhold, or reserve public land by statute or administrative 

order for public purposes. Withdrawals are established for a wide variety of purposes, e.g., power site reserves, military reservations, administrative sites, recreation sites, national parks, reclamation projects, and wilderness areas. Withdrawals 

are most often used to preserve sensitive environmental values and major Federal 

investments in facilities or other improvements, to support national security, and 

to provide for public health and safety. Withdrawals of public lands for military use 

require joint actions by DOI and the Department of Defense (DOD). DOD has a 

number of installations, training areas, and ranges that are located partially or 

wholly on temporarily or permanently withdrawn public lands. Many of these withdrawals support installations that are critical to the nation’s ability to provide for 

the readiness of the Armed Forces. Approximately 16 million acres of public lands 

are withdrawn for military purposes. 

There was no limit on the amount of public land that could be withdrawn administratively at a single location for military use until 1958 when the Engle Act (P.L. 

85-337) became law. The Engle Act requires an Act of Congress to authorize military land withdrawals aggregating 5,000 acres or more for any one defense project 

or facility. Similarly, there was no limit on the time period of administrative withdrawals until 1976 when the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

(P.L. 94-579) became law. FLPMA allows the Secretary of the Interior to adminisVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
23 

tratively make withdrawals aggregating 5,000 acres or more for purposes other than 

military use, for a period of not more than 20 years. Legislative military withdrawals have traditionally included time limits, with renewal required every 15, 20, 

or 25 years, depending on the terms in the legislation. 

DOI appreciates the importance of military installations for the security of the 

Nation and supports the multiple missions of our Armed Forces. We are proud to 

be able to offer public lands to support military readiness, training, and testing, and 

are proud to be able to assist the military in meeting its mission needs. Throughout 

the country we have established productive partnerships and other working arrangements with the military and we intend to continue these mutually beneficial 

arrangements. We are especially appreciative of the military’s stewardship of the 

withdrawn lands they manage. These arrangements have worked out well for all 

concerned and should continue. 

The Administration believes that the traditional, periodic review that is a part of 

the legislative withdrawal process is vital to promoting the highest quality stewardship and management of the public lands proposed for withdrawal in these bills. 

This process provides opportunities for DOD and the military branches to evaluate 

their continued use of the lands and obtain the participation and assistance of DOI 

in sound management, for DOI to ensure that the lands are being managed in ways 

that could allow their eventual return to the public domain for broader public use, 

and for the Congress and the public to provide input and oversight. 

S. 753, Boundary Solutions at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) and Fort Bliss 

WSMR is a test range of approximately 2.2 million acres in parts of five counties 

in southern New Mexico, making it one of the largest military installations in the 

United States. WSMR is contiguous to Fort Bliss to the south, which is used for 

military training. The majority of the lands that comprise both WSMR and Fort 

Bliss, over 2.4 million acres, are public lands withdrawn and reserved for the use 

of the Army under Public Land Order (PLO) 833 and by Public Law 106-65. 

S. 753 seeks to achieve boundary solutions at WSMR and Fort Bliss. First, the 

bill would withdraw and reserve approximately 5,100 additional acres for use by the 

Army at WSMR, to allow for an additional buffer area between the current public 

access areas and operations of several WSMR tenants, such as the NASA White 

Sands Test Facility and the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Tracking and Data 

Relay Satellite Systems Facility. The Administration supports the goal of allowing 

the use of the lands by the Army. However, these lands receive significant public 

use, mainly in the form of hunting and livestock grazing. Because the introduced 

bill does not address grazing, the reduction in the existing grazing permit and removal of any authorized range improvements within these lands would be carried 

out in accordance with BLM’s grazing regulations at 43 C.F.R Part 4100. 

S. 753 would also withdraw approximately 37,600 acres of public lands from the 

operation of certain public land laws, in order to establish a zone to buffer the noise, 

dust and vibrations from the live fire training activities on the adjoining Dona Ana 

tank gunnery and artillery range complex at Fort Bliss. These lands would remain 

under the full management of the Department of the Interior, but they would be 

withdrawn from the public land laws, the mining laws, and the mineral leasing, 

mineral materials, and geothermal leasing laws. The Administration supports the 

withdrawal of these lands, consistent with a similar provision included in the Administration’s FY 2014 NDAA legislative proposal. 

Additionally, S. 753 would transfer to the Secretary of the Interior administrative 

jurisdiction over approximately 2,050 acres of public lands previously withdrawn 

and reserved for the Army’s use under PLO 833. The lands are part of an area 

known as Filmore Canyon, and are adjacent on two sides to the BLM’s Organ Mountains Area of Critical of Environmental Concern (ACEC). Filmore Canyon is adjacent to the community of Las Cruces and includes hunting opportunities and scenic 

lands that are popular for year-round hiking. The BLM manages the Organ Mountains ACEC for significant scenic values and endangered wildlife species, and the 

ACEC contains cultural sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The Administration supports the return of these lands to full management 

by the Department of the Interior as part of a cohesive boundary solution at WSMR 

and Fort Bliss. We would like to work with the Subcommittee and the sponsor on 

technical modifications. 

S. 1169, Limestone Hills Training Area Withdrawal Act 

The Limestone Hills Training Area consists of 18,644 acres of public lands in 

Broadwater County, Montana that have been used for military training since the 

1950s. In 1984, the BLM issued the Army a right-of-way formally permitting use 

of the training area for military purposes. The current right-of-way expires on 

24 

March 26, 2014. The Montana Army National Guard is the primary DOD user of 

the training area, which is also used by reserve and active components from all 

branches of the military services for live fire, mounted and dismounted maneuver 

training, and aviation training. The withdrawal of the Limestone Hills Training 

area is necessary because the BLM has determined that it no longer has the authority to permit the use of the lands for military maneuvers under a right-of-way instrument. 

S. 1169 would withdraw and assign general management of the training area to 

the Army, but would keep management of grazing and mineral resources with the 

BLM. This arrangement is consistent with the Administration’s FY 2014 NDAA legislative proposal, and the Administration supports the goal of allowing the use of 

the lands by the Army under a withdrawal and reservation. However, the introduced bill contains a provision related to the location and maintenance of mining 

claims that is at odds with the Administration’s legislative proposal, and with which 

the Administration has concerns. 

Section 4 of S. 1169 would legislatively expand certain rights for mineral disposition or exploration. It would set a new precedent for public land withdrawals by allowing the opportunity to cure discrepancies in the original location or the failure 

to maintain several hundred mining claims in the Indian Creek mine area for the 

duration of the withdrawal. The legislative language could be interpreted to allow 

mining claimants to take in new land under existing claims, which could impact 

land required for military training—including live fire impact areas. By granting 

unique privileges to certain mining claimants, this provision is contrary to the normal operation of mining laws and regulations, which provide equal treatment for all 

claimants who are similarly situated. The Administration looks forward to working 

with the Subcommittee and the sponsor on modifications to address these concerns 

and on more technical changes to incorporate general provisions from the FY 2014 

NDAA legislative proposal. 

S. 1309, the Military Land Withdrawals Act 

S. 1309, the Military Land Withdrawals Act, represents the Administration’s legislative proposal to enact four public land withdrawals as part of the FY 2014 

NDAA. This proposal was jointly prepared by DOD and DOI and represents extensive discussions and consensus building between the two agencies to achieve common goals. Presently, the two existing withdrawals for NAWS China Lake, California, and CMAGR, California, enacted in the California Military Lands Withdrawal and Overflights Act of 1994 (1994 California Act) (P.L. 103-433), will expire 

on October 31, 2014. Additionally, the Marine Corps seeks a new withdrawal of public lands at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, California, to expand its training areas 

to support increased requirements. Finally, the Army needs to convert its use of 

public lands at the Montana Army National Guard, Limestone Hills Training Area, 

from a BLM issued right-of-way to a legislative withdrawal. 

Unlike prior legislative withdrawals which were uncodified, stand-alone provisions 

of law, the withdrawals made under S. 1309 would be codified in a new chapter of 

title 10, United States Code. This would make the withdrawal process substantially 

more efficient for both the Executive and Legislative branches by providing commonality among the withdrawal provisions, placing them in a location that is easy 

to find and refer to, and, if used for future withdrawals, reducing the need to reconsider and revise ‘‘boilerplate’’ provisions with each proposal. Also, this codification 

would allow changes to withdrawal provisions without having to wait the decades 

that might pass before the next withdrawal took place. This new flexibility would 

greatly aid the ability of DOD, DOI, and Congress to soundly manage withdrawn 

lands. 

S. 1309 includes many general provisions applicable to all four of the withdrawals. 

Among these are provisions for: the development of maps and legal descriptions; access restrictions; changes in use; authorizations for non-defense-related uses; management of range and brush fire prevention and suppression; on-going decontamination; water rights; hunting, fishing, and trapping; limitations on extensions and renewals; application for renewal; limitation on subsequent availability of lands for 

appropriation; relinquishment; interchanges and transfers of Federal lands; 

delegability of certain responsibilities by the Secretary of the Interior; and immunity 

of the United States. Most of these general provisions are similar, if not identical, 

to previously applied provisions in existing withdrawal statutes. 

The interchanges and transfers provision is included to address boundary management issues involving both withdrawn public lands and acquired real property. 

For example, there is a need for boundary adjustment on the northern side of 

CMAGR to address uncertainties and resource management conflicts associated 

with the BLM-managed Bradshaw Trail. The Bradshaw Trail is popular with offVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
25 

highway vehicle users, and is, in part, maintained by the local government, in coordination with the BLM. However, the trailhead and some of the trail’s length currently crosses acquired real property administered by the Department of the Navy 

(Navy) and the Marine Corps. In the case of the expansion of MCAGCC Twentynine 

Palms, the Navy will likely seek to purchase various inholdings within the proposed 

withdrawal boundary. It could be beneficial to both departments if these inholdings 

could be converted, by interchange or transfer, to BLM public lands. In any case, 

the interchange provision is limited to acre-for-acre in order to avoid expanding the 

footprint of DOD lands. The transfer provision is limited to the Engle Act 5,000 acre 

limit (total) for any one installation over the 25-year life of the withdrawal. These 

provisions are designed to allow for small administrative adjustments to promote 

sound land management without impinging upon the role of Congress in managing 

Federal lands. 

Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake, California 

NAWS China Lake consists of over 1.1 million acres of land in Inyo, Kern, and 

San Bernardino Counties, California, of which 92 percent are withdrawn public 

lands. Under a Memorandum of Understanding between the Navy and DOI, the 

Commanding Officer of NAWS China Lake is responsible for managing the withdrawn land. The installation is home to approximately 4,300 DOD personnel and 

its primary tenant is the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. The current 

20-year legislative withdrawal expires on October 31, 2014. 

The 25-year renewal included in S. 1309 is modeled on the current successful 

management scheme instituted as part of the 1994 California Act, which allows the 

DOD and DOI to combine their unique capabilities and assets for the benefit of the 

resources and the public by cooperatively managing natural and cultural resources, 

recreational resources, grazing, wild horses and burros, and geothermal resources. 

For example, the Navy manages the wild horses and burros on-the-ground at NAWS 

China Lake and the BLM manages the gathering, holding and adoption of the animals. In addition, the BLM and NAWS China Lake have a unique agreement to collaboratively produce geothermal energy at the installation, which currently produces 

over 150 megawatts of power. 

Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range (CMAGR), California 

The CMAGR was established in 1941. The range consists of about 459,000 acres 

in Imperial and Riverside Counties, California, of which approximately 227,000 

acres are withdrawn public lands under the co-management of the Marine Corps 

and the BLM. The remaining lands are under the administrative jurisdiction of the 

Department of the Navy. The two sets of lands form a checkerboard pattern of administrative jurisdiction. The Marine Corps primarily uses the lands for aviation 

weapons training, including precision guided munitions and Naval Special Warfare 

training. The current 20-year withdrawal is set to expire on October 31, 2014. 

S. 1309 provides for a 25-year renewal and would allow the BLM and Navy to 

institute the same type of cooperative management that has been successful at 

China Lake. The Chocolate Mountain range is home to a number of species such 

as desert tortoise and big horn sheep, and contains a wide range of archeological 

resources. 

Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) Twentynine Palms, California 

MCAGCC Twentynine Palms currently consists of 596,000 acres of land in San 

Bernardino County, California. In 1959, approximately 443,000 of those total acres 

were administratively withdrawn and reserved for the use of the Navy under PLO 

1860. DOD is now seeking to expand this installation with the withdrawal of approximately 154,000 acres of public lands adjacent to MCAGCC. The added training 

lands would create a training area of sufficient size with characteristics suitable for 

the Marine Corps to conduct Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) level training. 

MEB training requires sustained, combined-arms, live-fire and maneuver training 

of three Marine battalions with all of their associated equipment moving simultaneously toward a single objective over a 72-hour period. 

S. 1309 meets the important training needs of the Marines, and, recognizing that 

there will be impacts to public access, also includes a unique management structure 

to mitigate some of the loss of access to lands popularly used for off-highway vehicle 

(OHV) recreation. The bill provides for continued, year-round public access to the 

western third of the Johnson Valley OHV area. In addition, a shared use area of 

about 43,000 acres of the withdrawn lands would be available for OHV use for ten 

months out of the year, when there is no active military training. 

26 

Limestone Hills Training Area, Montana 

As previously stated, the legislative withdrawal of the Limestone Hills Training 

area is necessary because the BLM has determined that it no longer has the authority to permit the use of the lands for military maneuvers under a right-of-way instrument. Under S. 1309, general management of the training area would be assigned to the Army, but the BLM would retain management of grazing and mineral 

resources for the lands withdrawn and reserved. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for inviting our testimony on S. 753, S. 1169, and S. 1309. The Department of the Interior, which has always been part of the Nation’s national defense 

team, is committed to supporting military missions and training needs, while protecting natural resources and other traditional uses of the public lands. I would be 

happy to answer your questions. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, sir. 

At this time, we will have Ms. Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. 

STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

subcommittee. Thanks for the opportunity to share the administration’s views on bills we have before us today. 

We’d like to express our appreciation to Chairman Manchin and 

the committee for their continued interest in natural resources 

management. 

S. 37, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2013 would direct 

the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and implement forest and 

watershed restoration projects on 70,000 acres of the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest and 30,000 acres of the Kootenai National Forest within 15 years of enactment. 

The bill describes treatment methods, annual acreage targets, 

standardized criteria to prioritize areas for restoration, and hazardous fuels reduction projects. 

It also requires consultation with an advisory committee or collaborative group for each restoration project implemented, and calls 

for monitoring. 

The bill designates 24 wilderness areas totaling over 666,000 

acres, 6 recreation areas totaling over 289,000 acres, and 3 special 

management areas of over 80,000 acres. 

The administration supports S. 37 and looks forward to working 

with the committee and sponsor on the bill to develop modifications 

that could provide greater opportunities to accomplish the shared 

goals of restoration, recreation, and economic development. 

S. 364, the Rocky Mountain Heritage Act, would establish the 

Rocky Mountain Front conservation management area in Montana. 

The department supports the designation and establishment of the 

Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act of 2013. S. 364 would address 

noxious weeds, nonmotorized recreation, road construction and decommissioning, and designate additions to the National Wilderness 

Preservation system for the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness. We would like to work with the sponsor and the committee 

to define and clarify questions of scope and timing for noxious weed 

management and the nonmotorized recreation plans. 

27 

S. 509, the Fruit Heights Land Conveyance Act, would require 

the Secretary of Agriculture to convey without consideration approximately 101 acres of land from the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest in Fruit Heights City, Utah, for public purposes. 

While supportive of the city’s desire to expand public purposes, 

the department does not support S. 509. It is longstanding policy 

that the United States receive market value for any conveyance of 

National Forest system land. 

The parcel to be conveyed was purchased by the United States in 2002 for $3.2 million for the purposes of securing an important 

North-South route of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and to protect 

valuable winter range for mule deer. We would like to work with 

the bill sponsors, Fruit Heights City, and the committee to explore 

alternatives to this conveyance without consideration to achieve the 

goals of the city. 

S. 1300, the Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act, would repeal the existing stewardship contracting 

authority in Section 347 of the Department of Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriation Act of 1999 and replace it with a provision 

that would be added to the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. 

The Forest Service supports reauthorization of stewardship contracting and could support S. 1300, if amended. 

The legislation would reauthorize stewardship contracting for 10 

years and provide authority that is substantially the same as the 

existing authority with a few exceptions. The bill contains new authority that would clarify a contracting procedure, modify a requirement on potential cancellations, modify fire liability, and provide flexibility and offset funding. 

Stewardship contracting is a critical tool that allows the Forest 

Service to more efficiently complete restoration activities. The Forest Service supports efforts to increase the amount of forest restoration work on National Forest System lands, and we would like 

to work with the committee on several aspects of the language, including the offset for stewardship contracts and agreements in this 

bill, cancelation costs, and fire liability. 

S. 1301, the Oregon Eastside Forest Restoration Act of 2013, 

would provide for restoration of forest landscapes and management 

on National Forests in the Eastside Forest in the State of Oregon. 

The administration supports S. 1301, and we want to continue to 

work with the committee and chairman on some aspects of this legislation. 

This legislation would authorize the Secretary to select all or 

part of one or more National Forests in Oregon and the Secretary 

would then be directed to carry out landscape-scale planning, 

prioritize vegetation treatments, and hazardous fuels reduction. 

There are numerous concepts in the legislation that the department strongly supports, including expanding collaborative restoration efforts, efficient implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, greater dialog over areas of conflict prior to decision, and monitoring to track our results on the ground. 

We believe we are well-positioned to meet the intent of the bill. 

H.R. 404 would amend the Washington State Wilderness Act of 

1984 to allow for the operation and maintenance of the Green 

Mountain Lookout. The department supports this bill. 

28 

This legislation provides sufficient latitude to the Secretary of 

Agriculture to consider appropriate management strategies for the 

future, including removal of the lookout to a different location if 

conditions of the facility or use in the area warrant such action. 

H.R. 862 is a bill designated to correct an erroneous private survey on the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. The department 

supports this bill. 

The bill provides a flat rate of compensation for land to be conveyed rather than the market value of the property. We would like 

to work with the sponsor and the committee on this issue, but otherwise, it’s a great efficiency for us. 

Finally, the Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Act, the department continues to support the objectives of this legislation to assure the permitting of land management of the water facilities 

within the Frank Church Wilderness. 

This concludes my statement, and I would be pleased to answer 

any questions for you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Weldon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLIE WELDON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST

SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ON S. 37

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Leslie Weldon, Deputy Chief, 

National Forest System, U.S. Forest Service, United States Department Of Agriculture. Thank you for the opportunity to share the Department of Agriculture’s 

views on S. 37, the ‘Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2013.’ 

S. 37 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and implement forest and watershed restoration projects on 70,000 acres of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest and 30,000 acres of the Kootenai National Forest within 15 years of enactment. The bill prescribes treatment methods, annual acreage targets, and standardized criteria to prioritize areas for restoration and hazardous fuel reduction projects. 

It also requires consultation with an advisory committee or collaborative group for 

each restoration project implemented by the Secretary, and calls for a monitoring 

report every five years. The bill designates twenty-four wilderness areas totaling approximately 666,260 acres, six recreation areas totaling approximately 288,780 

acres, and three special management areas totaling approximately 80,720 acres. 

Some of the designations apply to lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management and we defer to the Department of the Interior on those provisions. 

The Department (USDA) supports S. 37 and looks forward to continuing to work 

with the Committee and Sponsor to develop modifications to the bill that could provide greater opportunities to accomplish the shared goals of restoration, recreation 

and economic development. 

The concepts embodied in this legislation, collaboratively developed landscape 

scale projects, increased use of stewardship contracting, and the importance of a viable forest products industry in restoring ecosystems and economies are fundamentally sound. USDA does have reservations about legislating forest management decisions and would hope that the work the Forest Service is doing to increase the pace 

and scale of forest restoration and management of the National Forests will make 

this type of legislation unnecessary in the future. In fact, the Forest Service is currently engaged in numerous programs and activities on the National Forests of 

Montana and around the nation that embrace the concepts in this bill. 

Examples of the work we are carrying out in the spirit of this legislation are underway as large-scale restoration projects on the national forests of Montana include: the Larry Bass Stewardship Project on the Bitterroot National Forest where 

we are completing hazardous fuel reduction work and are re-investing stewardship 

receipts to accomplish hazardous fuel/bark beetle work within and around a popular 

ski area on the forest; Sparring Bulls and Young Dodge, two large landscape 

projects on the Kootenai National Forest developed with a local collaborative group; 

and the Southwestern Crown of the Continent project, which will treat close to 

200,000 acres on the Lolo, Flathead and Helena National Forests with funding provided under the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. 

29 

Planned projects are increasingly focused on large landscape ecosystems to address shared issues across forest boundaries. For example, the Boulder Vegetation 

Project and a complex of projects planned on the Helena National Forest that focus 

on bark beetle infestations occurring on the two forests. 

Efforts such as these have helped the agency and stakeholders gain experience 

in identifying the factors necessary for the success of large-scale restoration projects, 

and I acknowledge the Senator’s incorporation of their input into this legislation. 

I offer our continued support for further collaboration on addressing remaining concerns to ensure that it can serve as a model for similar efforts elsewhere. 

We recognize that the proposed bill is the product of a collaborative effort. Such 

efforts are critically important to increasing public support for needed forest management activities, particularly in light of the bark beetle crisis facing Montana and 

other western states. We believe these efforts can significantly advance forest restoration, reduce litigation surrounding restoration where parties are willing to collaborate, and make it easier to provide jobs and opportunities in the forest industry 

for rural communities. While we have seen significant successes from collaboration 

in some parts of the country, there are areas where groups are not interested in 

collaboration and continue to use appeals and litigation as methods to delay or stop 

forest treatments that restore resilient forests, reduce severe wildfire potential and 

other objectives. Montana in particular continues to see substantial litigation activity. 

As noted above, USDA is concerned about legislating forest management direction 

or specific treatment levels on a site-specific basis. USDA wants to work with the 

Committee to ensure that this does not negatively impact other Forest Service priorities in Region 1 or draw important resources from priority work on other units of 

the National Forest System. We also would like to work with the Committee and 

sponsor on other aspects of the bill such as defining mechanical treatments, establishing reporting requirements, and provisions effecting other funds and road-density standards found in Title I. 

Regarding the land designations in Title II that pertain to lands under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service, we support the wilderness recommendations made in 

each Forest’s land and resource management plan given the depth of analysis and 

public collaboration that goes into them. Regarding the input from the Department 

that the Senator has incorporated, there are two items in S. 37 for which I would 

like to express the Department’s appreciation in particular: (1) the adjustments to 

wilderness area designations in Title II, which more closely reflect the extensive collaboration, analysis and resulting recommendations of the Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

2009 Forest Plan and other forest plans; and (2) the incorporation of the CFR 212.1 

definitions of ‘‘designated road, trail or area’’ in the bill provides for consistency of 

implementation. 

In closing, I want to thank Senator Tester once again for his strong commitment 

to Montana’s communities and natural resources. We appreciate the close work of 

the Senator’s staff with the Forest Service to refine legislation that would provide 

a full suite of significant benefits for the people, economy, and forests of Montana 

and the nation. The continuing commitment to bring diverse interests together to 

find solutions that provide a context for restoration, renewal, and sustainability of 

public landscapes and to foster healthy rural economies is evident in the legislation 

being considered by this Committee today. 

We want to underscore our commitment to the continuing collaboration with the 

Senator and his staff, the Committee, and all interested stakeholders in an open, 

inclusive and transparent manner to provide the best land stewardship for our National Forest System Lands. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

ON S. 364

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

to appear before you today and provide the Department of Agriculture’s views regarding S. 364, the ‘‘Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act of 2013’’, which would establish The Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area in Montana. 

The Department supports S. 364 and would like to work with the Committee to 

define and clarify questions of scope and timing for the noxious weed management 

and the non-motorized recreation opportunities. 

The Rocky Mountain Front area of Montana on the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest lies just to the south of Glacier National Park and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. It is an area where the plains meet the great continental divide. The area 

is marked by spectacular scenery and lush grasslands and that is home to a broad 

30 

range of Montana’s fauna and flora. The west side of the area is adjacent to the 

1.5 million acre Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex most of which was designated 

by the original 1964 Wilderness Act. The east side of the area is bordered by vast 

private ranchlands that have helped define Montana’s western heritage. 

S. 364 would designate approximately 195,000 acres of Federal land managed by 

the Forest Service and approximately 13,000 acres of Federal land managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as the Rocky Mountain Front Conservation 

Management Area (CMA). The bill would also designate additions to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System of approximately 50,400 acres to the Bob Marshall 

Wilderness and approximately 16,700 acres to the Scapegoat Wilderness; both areas 

would be managed by the Forest Service. The Department defers to the Department 

of the Interior on the designation of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

The Rocky Mountain Front CMA would be managed to conserve, protect, and enhance its recreation, scenic, historical, cultural, fish, wildlife, roadless, and ecological values. Within the CMA, S. 364 would permit the use of motorized vehicles only 

on existing roads, motorized trails and designated areas. S. 364 would allow for the 

construction of temporary roads as part of a vegetation management project in any 

portion of the CMA not more than 1/4 mile from designated roads. The bill also 

would authorize the use of motorized vehicles for administrative purposes including 

noxious weed eradication or grazing management. Livestock grazing would continue 

within the Conservation Area and Wilderness Areas where established prior to the 

date of enactment. 

S. 364 would require the Secretary to prepare a comprehensive management 

strategy for the Rocky Mountain Ranger District on the Lewis and Clark National 

Forest to prevent, control, and eradicate noxious weeds. The Secretary also would 

be required to conduct a study to improve non-motorized recreation trail opportunities. 

For decades, the Forest Service has worked in partnership with landowners to 

protect the economic and social value of the land considered for designation as the 

CMA. There are 21 Federal land grazing allotments in the CMA. The landscape also 

provides some of the best backcountry recreation experiences in the world. Because 

of the popularity of the area, Federal and private land managers have realized that 

there must be specific management emphasis placed on how the lands are used and 

protected. As more people enjoy and use this area, influxes of noxious weeds have 

occurred that could change the native ecosystem structure and function and seriously impact the private ranches. S. 364 calls for measures that would direct Federal agencies to work with State and private organizations to implement projects 

that concentrate on the prevention, control and eradication of invasive plants such 

as spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) that are threatening to change the 

ecosystem. The Lewis and Clark National Forest routinely works with other agencies and land owners to address noxious and invasive weed concerns. The Lewis and 

Clark National Forest is in the process of developing a memorandum of understanding with the U. S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS) that addresses how the agencies will work together regarding noxious weed control measures on the interface between private and Federal lands. 

The Department supports the intent described in the bill to address noxious 

weeds. The Department also supports the National Forest System lands identified 

for motorized and non-motorized recreation use, including mountain biking, in the 

conservation areas. The provisions in S. 364 are consistent with the current travel 

management plan for the Rocky Mountain Ranger District. The travel management 

plan was approved by the Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisor in October 

of 2007 after extensive public participation. Approximately 67,000 acres of land are 

identified in the forest plan for the Lewis and Clark as either recommended to Congress for wilderness designation or for further study for their potential as wilderness. The Department supports the wilderness designations included in this bill. 

The Department recognizes the management of vegetation along current motorized forest roads is an important component of this bill. Public safety is an important consideration in an area that is impacted by mountain pine beetle, which has 

created physical risk to the roadways and possible increased fire risk due to ignitions from road users. The Beaver-Willow Road, a previously established road, 

crosses through the Bear-Marshall-Scapegoat-Swan inventoried roadless area. As we 

understand the bill, the road’s location in an inventoried roadless area would not 

preclude timber harvest within 1/4 mile of the Beaver-Willow Road. 

31 

ON S. 404

S. 404, ‘‘To Preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness 

of the Mount Baker-Snowqualmie National Forest’’, would amend the Washington 

State Wilderness Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-339; 98 Stat.300; 16 U.S.C. 1131 note) 

by inserting language that would allow for the operation and maintenance of Green 

Mountain Lookout. The Department supports the bill. 

The Green Mountain Lookout represents a slice in time of the history of the area, 

and is a feature that is appreciated by many visitors. S.404 would provide the opportunity for future wilderness visitors to see how human influence has shaped our 

wildlands. This legislation provides sufficient latitude to the Secretary of Agriculture to consider appropriate management strategies for the future, including removal of the lookout to a different location if the condition of the facility or use in 

the area warrants such action. 

The Lookout was built in 1933 for fire detection on Green Mountain in what is 

now known as the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. In 1968 the Glacier Peak 

Wilderness Area was expanded by Congress to include a portion of the lookout site. 

In 1984 Congress passed the Washington Wilderness Act which designated the remainder of the peak as wilderness. In 1988 Green Mountain lookout was listed on 

the National Register of Historic Places. The Forest Service regularly staffed the 

lookout through 1984, and subsequently it was used for fire detection on an as-needed basis. It was closed in 1995 due to its deteriorating condition which posed a safety hazard to the public. 

The 1990 Mt.Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (Forest Plan) designated Green Mountain Lookout as a special wilderness allocation that accepted the non-conforming use of the lookout along with direction to 

‘‘stabilize and preserve’’ the structure. An analysis using a categorical exclusion 

which did not analyze alternatives for dealing with the lookout was prepared under 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a decision memo was completed 

in September 1998 which authorized the use of a helicopter and mechanized tools 

to rehabilitate the lookout. Rehabilitation efforts, including replacement of the deteriorated substructure, occurred from 1999 to 2001 with the help of grant money and 

the contribution of thousands of volunteer hours. Heavy snow during the winter of 

2002 resulted in damage to the new foundation. Later that year, after consultation 

with the Washington State Historic Preservation Officer, the Forest Service authorized the dismantling and removal of the structure to a temporary site outside of Wilderness on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. In doing so, each piece was 

identified and individually tagged so that it could be reassembled and restored to 

its exact original location and position, retaining those features which convey its 

historical significance. All work on the lookout was done in conformance with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic 

Properties. 

Many volunteer workshops over the years repaired and custom-manufactured 

missing parts to the original specifications. The lookout foundation was prepared onsite in 2009 and the disassembled lookout was flown back to Green Mountain and 

reassembled on the new substructure. 

A complaint was filed in the United States District Court by Wilderness Watch 

during the fall of 2010, alleging the repairs violated the NEPA and the Wilderness 

Act. In March, 2012, the District Court issued a decision in favor of the plaintiff. 

The Court determined that the Forest Service failed to justify an exception to prohibited conduct in a wilderness area with the 2002 decision to rehabilitate and reconstruct the lookout using helicopters and mechanized tools. The Court also found 

a NEPA violation based on the failure to conduct an Environmental Assessment, an 

Environmental Impact Statement, or, at a minimum, a reassessment of whether a 

categorical exclusion intended for repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities was applicable to the plans to dismantle, restore, and reconstruct the lookout 

in a wilderness area. In September 2012, the Court directed the Forest Service to 

determine how to move forward. 

The Forest Service is currently implementing the Court’s order. The initial steps 

have been taken to prepare the plan and draft an Environmental Impact Statement 

that will determine the specific action to be taken. A final decision is expected by 

June 2014. Should the bill become law, the Forest Service will use the planning and 

EIS process to consider appropriate management strategies for the future, including 

removal of the lookout to a different location if the condition of the facility or use 

in the wilderness area warrants such action. 

32 

ON S. 509

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

to testify on S.509, the ‘Fruit Heights Land Conveyance Act.’ 

S. 509 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey without consideration 

approximately 101 acres of land from the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest to 

Fruit Heights City, Utah for public purposes. While supportive of the City’s desire 

to expand for public purposes, the Department does not support S. 509. 

It is long standing policy that the United States receive market value for the sale, 

exchange, or use of National Forest System land. This policy is well established in 

law, including the Independent Offices Appropriation Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), section 

102(9) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701), as well 

as numerous land exchange authorities. 

The parcel to be conveyed was purchased by the United States in 2002 using appropriated Land and Water Conservation Act funds appropriated for the purpose of 

securing an important North-South route for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and to 

protect valuable winter range for mule deer. The land was acquired from a willing 

seller at market value for $3,244,000 with the assistance of the Trust for Public 

Land. 

The parcel was conveyed to the United States subject to valid existing rights, and 

the conveyance of the parcel by the United States and subsequent development by 

the City would be subject to the same rights. Specifically, the mineral estate is 

owned by a third party and there are easements for power lines, two buried irrigation pipelines, and access easements for multiple private homes. 

Under S.509, the conveyance would also be conditioned upon the City using the 

conveyed land for public purposes. If the land is ever used for anything other than 

public purposes, the land would revert to the United States at the election of the 

Secretary. Public purposes are not defined and could cover a vast array of land uses 

including municipal waste treatment facilities and industrial parks. This lack of 

public purpose definition could cause future management conflicts with adjacent National Forest System land. 

Although the Department does not support S.509, we are willing to work with the 

Bill sponsors, Fruit Heights City, and the Committee, to explore alternatives to this 

conveyance without consideration to achieve the goals of the City. 

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

may have. 

ON S. 1300

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

present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding S. 1300, 

the ‘‘Stewardship Contracting Reauthorization and Improvement Act.’’ The Forest 

Service supports reauthorization of stewardship contracting and could support the 

bill if amended. 

Stewardship contracting is a critical tool that allows the Forest Service to more 

efficiently complete restoration activities. Reauthorizing stewardship contracting authority and expanding the use of this tool are crucial to our ability to restore landscapes collaboratively. The authority allows the government to carry out restoration 

work at a reduced cost by offsetting the value of the services received with the value 

of forest products removed. In fiscal year 2012, approximately 25 percent of all timber volume sold on National Forest System lands was under a stewardship contract. 

The stewardship contracting authority has proved to be a valuable tool in many locations to implement restoration activities and meet multiple land management objectives including hazardous fuels reduction, wildlife habitat improvement, forest 

health improvement, and non-native invasive plant species control. 

S.1300 would repeal the existing stewardship contracting authority in section 347 

of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 

and replace it with a provision that would be added to the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. That provision would reauthorize stewardship contracting for 10 

years and provide authority that is substantively the same as the existing authority 

with a few exceptions. The bill contains new authority that would: 

• Clarify the contracting procedure for stewardship contracting by making clear 

that the various statutes that apply to normal Federal procurement actions do 

not apply these activities; 

• Modify the requirement to obligate funds to cover any potential cancellation or 

termination costs to allow the obligation of funds in economically or programmatically viable stages, providing advance notification of Congress and OMB; 

33 

• Require the Chief and Director to modify the fire liability provisions for all 

stewardship contracts and agreements to mirror the fire liability provisions currently contained in the Forest Service Integrated Resource Timber Contract and 

Forest Service Timber Sale contracts which limit the contractor’s liability for 

non-negligent fire. Allow the Chief and the Director to use excess receipts to 

satisfy outstanding liabilities for cancelled stewardship agreements and contracts; and 

• Allow the Chief and Director to offset spending on stewardship contracting 

using any additional amounts that may be made available to the Chief or the 

Director for the applicable fiscal year. 

Consistent with the purposes of S. 1300, the Forest Service supports efforts to increase the amount of forest restoration work on NFS lands. However, the Forest 

Service would like to work with the Committee on several aspects of the language 

related to the offset for stewardship contracts and agreements in this bill as well 

as to rethink provisions that would waive current acquisition laws and practices and 

not require potential termination and cancellation costs to be fully funded. 

I want to thank the Committee for its interest, leadership, and commitment to 

stewardship contracting, our national forests and their surrounding communities. 

This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

ON S. 1301

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Leslie Weldon, Deputy 

Chief for the U.S. Forest Service. Thank you for the opportunity to share the Administration’s views on S. 1301, Oregon Eastside Forests Restoration, Old Growth 

Protection and Jobs Act of 2013. We would like to express our appreciation to Chairman Wyden for the leadership, energy and effort that went into developing this legislation and for his work to bring diverse interests together. 

The Administration supports S. 1301; however, we are concerned that the agency 

may not have the capacity required to achieve the management targets prescribed 

in the bill. We want to continue to work with the Committee and the Chairman on 

this and other issues. USDA also has reservations about legislating forest management decisions and would hope that the work the Forest Service is doing to increase 

the pace and scale of forest restoration and management of the National Forests 

will make this type of legislation unnecessary in the future. 

There are numerous concepts in the legislation that the Department strongly supports including: conducting assessments at a broad landscape scale to focus our efforts to achieve restoration results on the ground, reducing our road system to what 

is needed, maintaining a much needed wood products industry and infrastructure, 

promoting sustainable use of biomass as an energy source, and collaborating with 

interested parties. We recognize the need to substantially increase the number of 

treatment acres for ecological reasons. We look forward to working with the Chairman and the Committee to ensure good alignment between the legislation and our 

current efforts to achieve our common goal of restoration that provides ecological, 

social and economic benefits. 

S. 1301 would authorize the Secretary to select all or part of one or more National 

Forests in Oregon as part of the Initiative. The provisions of the bill would apply 

to the covered area selected by the Secretary for a period of 15 years. In the covered 

area, the Secretary would be directed to seek accomplishment of certain land management goals, consider opportunities to carry out certain objectives, use landscape 

scale planning, prioritize vegetative management and hazardous fuel reduction to 

achieve performance goals, and carry out projects that would, to the maximum extent practicable, mechanically treat not less than 60,000 acres in the first fiscal year 

following enactment, not less than 80,000 acres in the second fiscal year; and not 

less than 100,000 acres in each of the subsequent years. 

S. 1301 also would direct the Secretary to delineate areas of aquatic and riparian 

resources in the covered area and would provide that vegetative management 

projects in the delineated areas protect and restore those resources and comply with 

aquatic and riparian protection requirements in the existing land management 

plans. The Secretary would be directed to have an advisory panel prepare a restoration report of the covered area to establish land management goals and carry out 

ecological restoration projects including projects at a landscape scale. 

In implementing these provisions, the Secretary would seek advice from the scientific advisory panel established under the bill. The Secretary also would consult 

with collaborative groups. On National Forests in Oregon and Washington, we are 

currently engaged in an eastside restoration strategy and are engaged in numerous 

34 

efforts to encourage and expand programs and activities that embrace many of the 

concepts in this legislation. 

When Secretary Vilsack articulated his vision for America’s forests, he underscored the overriding importance of forest restoration by calling for complete commitment to restoration. He also highlighted the need for pursuing an ‘‘all-lands’’ approach to forest restoration and for close coordination with other landowners to encourage collaborative solutions. 

To that end, the President’s FY 14 budget proposal includes a $757 million Integrated Resource Restoration line-item. This integrated funding approach will allow 

the Forest Service to apply the landscape scale concept, similar to the landscape 

scale efforts envisioned in this bill, across the entire National Forest System. In addition, the FY 14 budget provides $40 million, the full authorized amount, for the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP). 

Three notable and selected CFLRP projects in eastern Oregon include the Skyline 

Project, the Lakeview Stewardship Project, and the Southern Blue Mtn. Projects. 

These three projects represent over 1,600,000 acres of landscapes in eastern Oregon 

in desperate need of restoration work, which has begun. On all three projects, the 

Forest Service is working with the associated collaboratives to prioritize accomplishment of restoration work. CFLRP funding for these three projects is over $5 million 

dollars per year for the next 8 years. This funding is combined with matching National Forest System funding to increase the pace of restoration implementation in 

the project areas and doubles the amount of acres we can restore. 

The Forest Service is very interested in expanding collaborative restoration efforts 

within the State of Oregon and throughout the country. We are focusing on advancing several principles we believe are paramount to accomplishing restoration on the 

entire National Forest System. These principles include collaboration with diverse 

stakeholders, efficient implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, 

greater dialogue areas of conflict prior to the decision, ensuring opportunities for 

local contractors, expansion of the use of stewardship contracting if reauthorized, 

and monitoring to track our results on the ground. 

As Secretary Vilsack has noted previously, the Forest Service has reservations 

about legislating specific treatment levels and other aspects of our forest plans and 

identified several items of concern with the legislation. However, the Senator’s office, Committee staff, and the Forest Service worked together and made significant 

progress in addressing these concerns. The Agency has a meaningful national approach to management of the national forests that takes into account local conditions and circumstances through the development and implementation of Land and 

Resource Management Plans. Achieving performance levels proposed in this bill 

may be outside agency current capacity. USDA wants to ensure that this does not 

negatively impact other Forest Service priorities in Region 6 as well as shift funds 

from other areas of the country where high priority work is also underway and important to achieve. In addition, specific levels of treatment may also result in unrealistic expectations on the part of the communities and forest product stakeholders 

that the agency would accomplish the quantity of treatment required. In addition, 

we have various corrections, clarifications, and modifications to suggest and would 

be happy to work with the Committee staff to address these matters. They include 

the number of forests covered by this legislation, suggested planning area acres 

thresholds, the setting of age limits for harvest, compatibility with PACfish and 

Infish, Environmental Impact Statement timelines, and budgets. 

We have a strong interest in accelerating our restoration activities to achieve resilient landscapes and ecologically and economically healthy communities and we 

look forward to working with you to achieve these common objectives. 

I want to again thank Chairman Wyden for his leadership and strong commitment to Oregon’s national forests, their surrounding communities, and forest products infrastructure. I look forward to working with the Senator, his staff, and the 

Committee, and all interested stakeholders to help ensure sustainable communities 

and provide the best land stewardship for our national forests. This concludes my 

prepared statement and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

ON H.R. 862

Chairman Manchin and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of Agriculture’s views 

on H.R. 862, a bill designed to correct an erroneous, private survey on the Coconino 

National Forest in Arizona. 

The Department supports this bill. 

In 1960-61, privately contracted surveyors surveyed two sections of land in what 

is now known as the Mountainaire Subdivision, which largely abuts the Coconino 

35 

National Forest. Both surveys were found to be inaccurate when the Bureau of Land 

Management conducted a survey in 2007. The BLM survey correctly re-established 

the boundary of the National Forest System lands. 

Because of the erroneous private surveys, approximately 19 parcels totaling 2.67 

acres of National Forest System land now have structures built on them. Although 

the Forest Service has authority under the Small Tracts Act (Public Law 97-465) 

to sell this land to the homeowners, H.R. 862 would more quickly and efficiently 

resolve the issue with all property owners at the same time. 

Section 1(c) of the bill would provide for consideration in a fixed amount of 

$20,000. To ensure that appropriate compensation for the land to be conveyed is recovered on behalf of the American taxpayer, an appraisal should be done consistent 

with Federal appraisal standards and the homeowner would pay the appraised 

value. The bill should also provide that the homeowner should bear other administrative costs associated with the conveyance. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

ON H.R. 876

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

share the Administration’s views on H.R. 876, the ‘Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act.’ 

The U.S. Forest Service supports H.R. 876. The bill authorizes the issuance of a 

special use permit for the continued use of water storage, transport, or diversion facility located on National Forest System lands in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho. The permits will 

only be issued to the water system owners of the water systems identified within 

these two wilderness areas and if certain conditions are met. We would like to work 

with the committee and the sponsor to locate on a map the water facilities authorized under this bill. 

Currently, there are over 20 water developments within the Frank Church-River 

of No Return and Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Areas that predate establishment of 

the wilderness, in some cases by decades. 

These developments include hydropower developments, irrigation, and domestic 

water uses. The legislation establishing both wilderness areas did not address these 

pre-existing water developments. H.R. 876 would direct the Forest Service to issue 

special use authorizations, if the Secretary makes the following determinations: the 

facility was in existence when the wilderness area on which the facility is located 

was designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System; the facility 

has been in substantially continuous use to deliver water for the beneficial use on 

the owner’s non-Federal land since the date of designation; the owner of the facility 

has a valid water right for use of the water on the owner’s non-Federal land under 

Idaho State law, with a priority date that pre-dates the date of designation; and it 

is not practicable or feasible to relocate the facility outside the wilderness and 

achieve the continued beneficial use of water on non-Federal land. We understand 

that the bill does not create any rights beyond what is provided in the special use 

permit and that both maintenance responsibilities and liabilities continue with the 

permit holder, and not the Federal government. 

This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

At this time, I will start the questioning and then we’ll go back 

and forth through our Senators up here for further questions. 

First of all, this will be to Ms. Katherine Hammack. 

You mentioned that the Army has significant concerns with language in Senator Baucus’s bill—that’s S. 1169—relating to the activities of the limestone mine operator. I understand there’s an existing agreement that specifies how the mine and the military 

training will coexist. 

Why is there now a conflict? Is the current operating agreement 

with the mine no longer adequate? 

Also, I think in this question, do you know if the Governor of the 

State of Montana is an agreement with the proposed withdrawal 

language from the Montana National Guard, since the Governor 

36 

would be the commander in chief for the National Guard in Montana. 

Ms. HAMMACK. In regards to the first question, we are in support 

of the existing mining claims in the existing agreement. Unfortunately, the language expands that to claims that have been closed 

or retired, and allows additional claims to be allowed. So it goes beyond the existing mining claims. 

So that is our objection. It’s going beyond the existing agreement, 

the existing mining claims, essentially opens up the whole area. 

Senator MANCHIN. Can I ask a question, the limestone mining in 

that region, is it by law required to reclaim that land for use? I 

would think if it would be reclaimed properly, you would still have 

adequate use of it. 

Ms. HAMMACK. The concern in the legislation is it opens up the 

aperture beyond the existing agreements, which have been in place 

for many years and are regularly reviewed. 

Senator MANCHIN. I mean, the land that they’ve already mined, 

is it usable after they get done with it? 

Ms. HAMMACK. There is an agreement by which it is restored to 

a point where there can be multiple uses of the land whether it is 

by the Army, grazing, timber, or other areas. 

Senator MANCHIN. So there’s reclamation. Is reclamation part of 

this? 

Ms. HAMMACK. That is my understanding, yes, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you know if the Governor is in agreement? 

Ms. HAMMACK. My understanding is that the Governor is in 

agreement with the withdrawals as specified in S. 1309, which is 

the administration’s proposal. 

Senator MANCHIN. This question will be to Mr. Natsuhara. In 

1309, the military land withdrawals, are the military land withdrawals for the China Lake and Chocolate Mountain sites simply 

renewals of existing authority or are they changing current uses? 

Mr. NATSUHARA. They are essentially the same. There is some 

additional training, the number of evolution, but the training and 

testing are the same in both locations. 

Senator MANCHIN. Also, you discuss the proposal of new military 

land withdrawal at Twentynine Palms to be used for marine field 

training and noted the area is also popular for off-road vehicle 

recreation. 

What steps are you taking to avoid conflict between the military 

and the recreational use? 

Mr. NATSUHARA. We work very closely with the public through 

the Environmental Impact Statement process. In fact, the alternative we selected was a new alternative developed during that 

process with the off-road vehicle community, and over a third of 

the land withdrawals that we’re requesting would be available for 

10 months of the year. So it would be shared to use with them. 

Senator MANCHIN. My final question goes to Ms. Leslie Weldon. 

On S. 37 and S. 364, I have a question about those 2 Montana bills, 

the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and the Rocky Mountain Front 

bill. 

What will be the effect of the wilderness and conservation designations on existing hunting and fishing uses on those National 

Forest lands? 

37 

Ms. WELDON. Thank you. The designation of those areas as wilderness will allow hunting and fishing to continue. That hunting 

and fishing—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Is there agreement for that, because usually, 

with the wilderness designation, that doesn’t happen? 

Ms. WELDON. What is interesting about these areas is they have 

already been through a public process with the S. 37 that have 

them as part of forest plans. The difference would be just the ability and type of access, but these are already backcountry areas. So 

we don’t think there would be much difference. 

Senator MANCHIN. So, basically, the hunters and sportsmen will 

still have access? 

Ms. WELDON. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. Be able to use the lands being used? 

Ms. WELDON. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. Are they able to do any habitat rehabilitation, 

or is it going to be all natural? 

Ms. WELDON. Within wilderness, we would favor more natural 

through wildfire, compared with other more intensive mechanicaltype treatments. 

Senator MANCHIN. OK, I have no further questions at this time. 

Senator Flake. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the witnesses. 

Mr. Farquhar, with regard to S. 1300, you mentioned that you 

would support, if there were a couple of amendments to the legislation. Can you describe those? What do you need in order for the 

BLM to support? 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Senator Flake, the stewardship contracting tools 

that are provided right now don’t have the same ceiling provisions, 

and there’s kind of a technical budget issue there that we’re concerned about in the administration. 

The BLM actually doesn’t exercise that very often itself, because 

our contracts are smaller and not over as long a term. But we do 

think, along with the Forest Service, that that provision would 

need to be changed. 

Senator FLAKE. OK, assuming that that could rectified, then you 

would be able to support? 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Senator, we’re very enthusiastic about stewardship contracting, very grateful that you’ve introduced this bill. 

Senator FLAKE. OK, thank you. 

Ms. Weldon, can you speak to that as well? I know there are concerns for the offsets, but we have to deal with that anyway here. 

So assuming that that can be fixed, you’d be OK as well? 

Ms. WELDON. Yes, we are quite enthusiastic about the prospect 

of having this reauthorized for 10 years. We believe that there’s 

some opportunity for us to work through the issues that are there, 

and we would really appreciate continuing to work with you on 

those. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. I know that there was some concern 

on the ceiling. 

Ms. WELDON. Yes. 

Senator FLAKE. Flexibility there. If you look in other areas, flexibility in this ceiling is used in the Department of Defense as well. 

38 

In fact, in 1998, Jack Lew, who was then acting OMB Director, 

issued a memorandum encouraging agencies to look at cancellation 

ceiling flexibility to enter into these contracts with energy efficiency. 

They said that out-year costs and potential cancellation charges 

are not required to be financed upfront. So what we’re looking at 

here, which I think everyone has identified as a potential obstacle—not a potential obstacle, has been an obstacle, some of these 

long-term contracts. We see it in other areas or other agencies 

being used. So we hope that we’re able to come to an agreement 

there. 

Ms. WELDON. Yes, we’re very encouraged to see some other examples that could hopefully be used as a model here as well. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. I don’t need to tell you how desperate 

we are in Arizona to—— 

Ms. WELDON. Yes. 

Senator FLAKE [continuing]. To ramp up this process and to treat 

more acreage. We’ve seen over the past 10 years 2 once-in-a-lifetime fires. We burned nearly a million acres. About a fourth of our 

entire forests in Arizona have gone up in smoke and more are 

threatened certainly unless we move ahead and go beyond just the 

wild land-urban interface but get deep into the forest. 

We believe that this will allow us to move more quickly, and we 

would greatly appreciate your input as we go along, and your support for this legislation. 

So thank you so much. 

Ms. WELDON. Thanks very much. 

Senator MANCHIN. Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank 

my colleague from Arizona as well for his work on stewardship contracting. That’s critically important. 

I want to thank Assistant Secretary Hammack for being here 

today to provide the Department of Defense’s thoughts and perspectives on our legislation in New Mexico, and to articulate why 

these land boundary adjustments are so important for the military 

training in the region. 

I want to say upfront that I look forward to working with Deputy 

Secretary Farquhar to address the technical issues that you referenced. We’re more than happy to make that happen. 

This is a very important bill for southern New Mexico and, 

frankly, an important bill for our national security. So I appreciate 

the subcommittee’s work today. 

Assistant Secretary Hammack, in your testimony, you kind of describe how the Dona Ana tank gunnery and artillery range complex 

at Fort Bliss can generate an awful lot of noise and vibration and 

dust. Can you go into a little greater detail about why the withdrawal is so important for the future of Fort Bliss and military 

training in the region as a whole? 

Ms. HAMMACK. Certainly. What we are seeing on our bases 

throughout the United States is encroachment, and encroachment 

from residential housing, from commercial enterprises can conflict 

with the training activities that occur. 

In this area on the southern boundary of Fort Bliss where we do 

a lot of our training and it is one of our national training centers, 

39 

we are concerned that the continued encroachment of the city could 

cause additional conflict. The withdrawal of these lands as boundary conditions are really acting as a compatible use buffer. We do 

not have intention of doing training on them but preserving them 

from development so that the mission of the base can be preserved. 

Senator HEINRICH. In a related question, S. 753 transfers jurisdiction over about 5,100 acres from the BLM to the Army, a little 

over 2,000 acres from the Army to the BLM, and then this buffer 

area, just over 35,000 acres that you referenced, and keeps the 

BLM from disposing or developing that particular part. 

Can you talk a little bit to the committee about why it’s important to do these 3 things together as opposed to a more piecemeal 

approach? 

Ms. HAMMACK. They all have the same impact, and that’s a very 

good point. The impact is buffer. 

We are not going to do training on them. We’re not going to do 

live-fire training on them. But it preserves the security mission. 

The 5,100-acre portion that is withdrawn for the benefit of NASA 

and the NRO Aerospace Data Facility is a mission that’s close to 

the boundary. We have security issues. We’ve already seen some 

security issues there, because of the close proximity to public access. 

So giving us this standoff of 5,100 acres still reserves the lands 

for use by missions that are not conflicted. So it’s wildlife 

sustainment, endangered species, et cetera. But it gives us a physical security boundary to ensure that we don’t have trespassers 

that could inhibit the mission that we are doing there. 

Binding these all together, they all have the same reason. It’s a 

buffer that we need for the military. 

Senator HEINRICH. Better stated than I could have myself, so 

thank you. 

I did want to ask, Deputy Assistant Secretary Farquhar, on the 

35,000 acres that basically becomes a buffer under this legislation, 

would any of the current uses in that area, the multiple uses that 

exist there today under Bureau of Land Management management, 

be prohibited if this bill is passed? 

Mr. FARQUHAR. Senator Heinrich, I’m not aware of any uses that 

would be prohibited, but I’d rather get back to you with more detail 

and a correct answer. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you. I appreciate your time. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you. 

Senator Cantwell. 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to ask Deputy Chief Weldon, first of all, thank you so 

much for your testimony in support of S. 404. I wanted to just clarify. 

The Forest Service, were you looking to remove or destroy this 

lookout prior this court decision? 

Ms. WELDON. We were not. We were actually looking at restoring 

it and having it continue to occur within the area. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK. Have you talked to people in the local 

community? What have they said about it? 

40 

Ms. WELDON. There’s good support for having it retained as a 

historic part of the landscape there within the wilderness. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK, so if this legislation was passed this 

year, the lookout would still be preserved in that time period? 

Ms. WELDON. I believe we would need to finish some analysis to 

allow us to do the complete job of the restoration work we want to 

do there. But that is something that doesn’t require an extensive 

NEPA process. We think it could be done relatively soon, but I’m 

not sure if it would be within the year. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK, my point was if this legislation, 404, 

passed by the end of the year, you wouldn’t be destroying the lookout tower before then, is my point. 

Ms. WELDON. No, we would not. 

Senator CANTWELL. OK, all right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MANCHIN. Are there any more questions from the Senators? 

If not, we’re going to in recess just for a minute. Senator 

Barrasso is coming back. He had to go to another committee hearing. Then he had a few questions to ask, if you could just remain 

where you are now, we’ll be right back with you. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Senator MANCHIN. Senator Barrasso will not be able to make it 

back, so at this time, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(41) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF LESLIE WALLACE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1a. I would like to inquire about the budget and resource capacity for 

the two bills, S. 37 and S. 1301. As I stated in my opening, I appreciate the concern 

with the status quo on our forests and the desire to get more timber produced. I 

also recognize that for the foreseeable future the Forest Service budget will be severely constrained. 

In your past testimony from May 18, 2011 on S.220, a similar version of S. 1301, 

the Forest Service said: 

‘‘Achieving performance levels proposed in this bill is outside agency current capacity and could result in the shifting of funds from other areas of the country 

where high priority work is also underway and important to achieve.’’ 

Now this time your testimony changes slightly to ‘‘may be outside current capacity’’ and 

‘‘USDA wants to ensure that this does not negatively impact other Forest Service 

priorities in Region 6 as well as shift funds from other areas of the country . . . ’’ 

This language about USDA concerns also appears in your testimony regarding S. 

37. 

It seems this is a distinction without a difference. Does the Forest Service still 

have the same basic concerns about these bills? 

Answer. Yes. Funding issues are still a concern. 

Question 1b. If these bills are signed into law, as currently written, does the agency have the money needed to implement all of the timber work without negatively 

impacting other priorities? 

Answer. At the current budget level, no. 

Question 1c. If increased funding is necessary but not provided by Congress to accomplish the performance levels in these bills, will the Forest Service direct funds 

from other forests or regions to accomplish them? 

Answer. It would depend on the language in the bill, and on our priorities as determined at the time. 

Question 1d. How will the USDA ensure that these bills don’t result in shifting 

of funds from other areas of the country? 

Answer. It is true that USDA may need to shift funds from other areas. Depending on the language in the bill we will continue to evaluate needs in all national 

forests and allocate funds accordingly. 

Question 2. Both S. 37 and S. 1301 legislate forest management direction and, in 

some cases, specific treatment levels or harvest mandates that apply on a state or 

forest-specific basis. From your testimony it appears that you believe this is a poor 

idea. 

As a land management agency, do you support Congress legislating management 

prescriptions on a state-by-state and forest-by-forest basis? 

Answer. As a general rule, we don’t support legislating prescriptions on a stateby-state or forest-by-forest basis, as new research and data often suggest new management approaches. In addition, site specific attributes need to be considered in developing optimum prescriptions to meet the objectives for individual analysis areas. 

Question 3a. I’d like to clarify some specifics in S. 1301 that may have policy implications nationwide. 

42 

Last Congress’s version of this bill would have sunset after 15 years, this version 

permanently legislates management for the Eastside Forests including legislating 

diameter caps and age limits for tree harvest. 

Congress has never legislated diameter caps or age limits on tree harvest. That 

would be a significant new precedent. 

Does the Forest Service support legislating diameter caps on tree harvest? 

If yes, Will you provide me the scientific basis for this precedent? 

If no, Why not? 

Answer. No. Site specific attributes and best available science needs to be considered in developing optimum prescriptions to meet the objectives for individual areas. 

Question 3b. Does the Forest Service support legislating age limits on tree harvest? 

If yes, Will you provide me the scientific basis for this precedent? 

If no, Why not? 

Answer. No. Site specific attributes need to be considered in developing optimum 

prescriptions to meet the objectives for individual analysis areas. In addition, the 

age of a tree cannot be discerned with a visual inspection, necessitating boring of 

the tree, which is time consuming and can be harmful to the tree. 

Question 4a. Section 4(e)(2)(C)(i) references the Decision Notice establishing the 

21’’ diameter ‘‘eastside screens’’ prohibitions as an alternative to the 150 year old 

age prohibition included in Section 4(e)(1). However, Section 4(e)(2)(C)(ii) maintains 

a prohibition on cutting any live tree over 150 years of age. Please provide the following information: 

What purpose does the Forest Service see for the exception to use the 21 ‘‘eastside 

screens located at 4(e)(2)(C)(i) if it is still prohibited from harvesting any tree older 

than 21’’ (150 years). 

Answer. The proposed text appears to try to give some flexibility to cut trees 

greater than 21 inches as long as they are less than 150 years old. This would be 

hard to implement, though, because one cannot use visual inspections to determine 

the age of a tree, and boring trees can be harmful and be quite time consummg. 

Question 4b. By including a reference to the eastside screens decision notice in 

legislation, would the Forest Service be barred from administratively changing the 

eastside screens requirement in future forest plan revisions? 

Answer. Possibly. We need to do a more thorough legal analysis of this issue. 

Question 5. This year there is a new provision in S. 1301, an earmark carve out 

of 5 percent of the national funds for the ‘Forest Health-Federal Lands’ budget line 

item under the State and Private Forestry appropriation which would provide approximately $2.4 million of national funding to just three forests in Oregon. 

How would this carve out affect other national forests and your program priorities 

nationally that receive funding from this appropriation program account? 

Answer. It would reduce the amount available to other regions and forests. 

Question 6a. S.404 is a great example of how broken our legal system really is 

with respect to implementation of environmental laws. In this case, it’s the Wilderness Act. First, the Forest Service as I understand it made 65 helicopter trips to 

repair and restore a lookout tower in a wilderness. Now, the Forest Service is being 

told by a judge, who agreed with an environmentalist lawsuit, to remove the historic 

lookout tower built in 1933. 

This one example of an unintended consequence is why many people are so skeptical of wilderness designations. Today we have legislation before us to preserve a 

man-made historical structure that the Wilderness Society calls a ‘‘local wilderness 

treasure.’’ 

Answer. The flight costs were approximately $100,000. The cost to rebuild the 

structure was approximately $108,000. 

Question 6b. How much did thelitigation cost the Forest Service? Were any legal 

fees requested to be reimbursed by the plaintiffs? If so, how much? 

Answer. The Forest Service does not collect data on Forest Service costs for litigation. For the Plaintiffs, the legalfees requested were $89, 392 and the final dollar 

amount awarded was $70,804.19. 

(43) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

MONTANA FOREST.ORG, 

July 26, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 221 Dirksen Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWKSI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOE MANCHIN, 

Chairman, Subcomittee on Public Lands, Forests & Mining, 306 Hart Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests & Mining, 307 Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMEN AND RANKING MEMBERS, 

We write as representatives of a diverse Montana coalition who strongly support 

S. 37, Senator Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Thank you for scheduling 

a hearing on this legislation, and we look forward to working with you on this important bill. 

As business owners, loggers, conservationists, sportsmen and sportswomen, we 

have worked hard to put aside our differences to ensure that: rural Montana has 

a healthy economic future, we restore fish and wildlife habitat, and protect some 

of the state’s most deserving wild places. Collaboration is a common buzzword 

meaning different things to different people. To us, it means sitting down with our 

neighbors and sometime adversaries long enough to get to know one another and 

discover the values that we share as Montanans. It means respecting one another 

and forging a common vision for our communities’ future. We have done this in laying the foundation for the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. 

It wasn’t easy. Montana’s history of disputes over natural resources management 

and land protection is long and bitter. Over time, we’ve realized these fights haven’t 

produced any winners. Our way of life and outdoor heritage has suffered as a result. 

The timber industry and some native trout populations have both been in decline 

and are just hanging on. Iconic elk populations in the state saw their vital habitat 

continually fractured by road building. Some of Montana’s pristine—and popular— 

backcountry never got the protection it deserved, costing us precious wilderness 

quality lands. Passage of S. 37 moves us beyond this divisive past. 

Combining a solid plan for forest stewardship with the protection of key public 

lands will help to ensure Montana’s future economic prosperity. Montana’s outdoor 

heritage makes our state unique, and our public lands are an important economic 

driver. Many businesses and individuals come to Montana because of the high quality of life associated with abundant public lands and outdoor recreation, bringing 

jobs, investment, and economic development to our communities. 

As you are aware, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act advances four major goals: 

• Maintain a healthy timber industry that provides wood products and jobs in 

rural Montana communities. 

• Improve degraded but important fish and wildlife habitat. 

• Protect public land to ensure access for future generations. 

• Support a robust recreation economy including both motorized and non-motorized use. 

The bill achieves these goals by: 

44 

• Designating 677,000 of wilderness across western Montana. 

• Implementing forestry projects designed to reduce fuel loads in fire-prone areas, 

decrease road densities, and produce wood products. 

• Designating national recreation and special management areas to provide a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities. 

By achieving these goals, Congress will help advance Montana’s economic development by: 

• Providing direct jobs in the timber industry, and the communities that rely on 

it; 

• Expanding economic opportunities through restoration activities as well as increased recreation and tourism; 

• Providing a desirable place to live and work that will help attract new businesses and jobs. 

This legislation will help to resolve forest management conflicts that have remained unresolved for decades. Much of the measure focuses on one primary outcome: protecting and restoring critical watershed and forest health and function. 

Some parts of Montana’s national forests are impaired by previous management, 

beetle and disease infestations, and excessive fire suppression. High road densities, 

clogged culverts, and compromised forest stand structure have altered wildlife habitat and water quality. Our wood products infrastructure—the very tools necessary 

for restoration—is at risk of disappearing. This legislation aims to increase the pace 

and scale of restoration of forestlands, while reducing the Forest Service’s road 

maintenance costs, leading to important improvements in ecosystem health. 

Many years of hard work created this legislation. Montana’s forests, wood products industry, communities, fish and wildlife populations deserve a chance to see it 

enacted. We welcome the opportunity to work with you and our entire congressional 

delegation to achieve passage of a bill that rewards the promise of so many working 

together for a common goal. 

Thank you for your leadership and for considering our support for this important 

legislation. 

Sincerely, 

SHERM ANDERSON, 

Sun Mountain Lumber. 

BARB CESTERO, 

Greater Yellowstone Coalition. 

ROBYN KING, 

Yaak Valley Forest Council. 

PETER AENGST, 

The Wilderness Society. 

BRIAN SYBERT, 

Montana Wilderness Association. 

DAN DALY, 

Roseburg Forest Products. 

ED REGAN, 

RY Timber. 

TOM FRANCE, 

National Wildlife Federation. 

BRUCE FARLING, 

Montana Trout Unlimited. 

LOREN ROSE, 

Pyramid Mountain Lumber. 

WAYNE HIRST, 

Wayne Hirst and Associates. 

TIM LINEHAN, 

Linehan Outfitting Company. 

NICK GEVOK, 

Montana Wildlife Federation. 

45 

STATEMENT OF THREE RIVERS CHALLENGE PARTNERSHIP, TROY, MT 

ON S. 37

It humbles us for the Senate committee to receive this testimony about our small 

but vital place-based peace proposal. With all the pressing domestic obligations of 

the Senate, we are keenly aware of the time demands upon the committee’s members. 

The immensity of the domestic concerns of the day are familiar to us. Our own 

domestic issue is important to us-it is as vital to us at a local level as it is to all 

the rest of the country, shared stakeholders in these public lands, whether they ever 

visit or use these lands directly or not, and passage of this bill will bring peace, solace, and solitude to future generations, and will preserve a way of life in northwest 

Montana that is otherwise fast-vanishing, but we will get to the specifics of that momentarily. We first wish to thank our Senators for their leadership, and the committee, with its oversight on these beloved federal lands upon which so many of 

these diverse interests take place. 

Although our issue is smaller than the federal deficit, smaller than immigration, 

smaller than global warming-smaller, perhaps, than anything else you will look at 

this year-and how odd, for such a state as Montana to submit so compact and modest a proposal-it is huge in our hearts. In the Yaak Valley of extreme northwest 

Montana, up on the Canadian and Idaho borders, we have been waiting for over 45 

years for such a proposal, and quite frankly, the success of this venture came only 

when the local environmental community stopped exclusively pressing for what it 

wanted and needed, and thought to ask what it was their opposition wanted-what 

they were for, rather than simply what they were against-that the Three Rivers 

Challenge’s various interest groups first began to consider what useful and effective 

collaboration might create a map of common ground, and the value such a map 

would hold for land managers. 

In this regard, though our proposal is an extremely local suggestion for a relatively small portion of one ranger district on one National Forest, the much-beleaguered Kootenai-we hope there might be larger benefits and implications for polarized communities who seek to choose collaboration over the gridlock and crippling 

social and economic and ecologic effects of unthinking and ceaseless war. We hope 

and believe the success of our project can serve as a model for the rest of the West, 

and the country-or any community, anywhere-on any issue, with our mapping of 

common ground. 

Our meetings have been open to the public, with an invitation to any and all who 

are interested in coming up with positive solutions for the creation of such a mapsuch an experiment-and through hundreds of meetings over the last five years we 

have performed extensive outreach to not only local individuals and groups, but 

state and regional and national interests as well. Our supporters are comprised of 

a gold-standard mix of what were once the most unlikely of allies, and include representatives from hunting and fishing guides, local snowmobile clubs, the local ATV 

club, stewardship forestry contractors, loggers, roadbuilders, local and state and regional environmental groups, school boards, and the general business community. 

In a nutshell, with regard to the Three Rivers (‘‘Yaak’’) portion of Senator Tester’s 

and Senator Baucus’ bill, the following goals are accomplished: wilderness and special areas are protected in the Yaak; overstocked forests will be treated to reduce 

fire risk and to help provide a sustainable flow of fiber for the local and regional 

wood products industry; forest restoration needs will be accomplished, resulting in 

healthier watersheds and wildlife habitat, and local employment; and the needs of 

motorized as well as nonmotorized recreation are addressed. Guides and outfitters 

benefit as well from a healthier local economy and by being able to provide wilderness and backcountry experiences to their clients, and by the retention of trout and 

elk populations. 

Please accept our general testimony above, and the specific testimony below. 

Wildlife.—Hand-crafted over six years, contour by contour, in consultation with 

state and federal biologists, the Three Rivers Challenge protects-and increases-critical grizzly bear habitat. It protects the headwaters of the imperiled inland redband 

trout, a species whose habitat local conservation groups are working to improve in 

order to recover the species, hopefully without the expense of an Endangered Species listing. The Yaak Valley is about more than grizzlies, trout and wolverine, however-it is home to salamanders, frogs, vireos in the springtime, carnivorous 

sundews, ferns and orchids, and protecting some of the wildest and farthest reaches 

of the valley will help ensure protection for the habitat of these and so many other 

species. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, and the Three Rivers Challenge compoVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
46 

nent within that bill, is good for wildlife, and the state’s rod and gun clubs, and 

guides and outfitters, ask you to support it. 

Timber Industry.—The timber industry in Lincoln County and the West is dying. 

Slower growth rates that elsewhere in the country, diminishing ecological thresholds, at-times overzealous litigation, unfair foreign competition, dramatic increases 

in labor-saving technology, the bursting of the housing bubble, increased insurance 

costs, fluctuating interest rates, and other factors, all in play even before the recession hit, have resulted in one mill after another closing. Particularly hard hit are 

the independent family-owned mills. Not only are we losing good-paying manufacturing jobs that are the backbone of many families’ existence in our community, we 

are also quickly losing the infrastructure and skillsets required for forest management in sensitive and overstocked areas-next to towns and homes-at the precise 

time when we can least afford it, as many forests begin to collapse from fire suppression, heat, drought, and insects. 

The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, and the Three Rivers Challenge component 

within it, is good for what little remains of the Montana timber industry, and the 

Three Rivers Challenge asks you to support it. 

Community Dynamics.—Success for local forest collaboration and more effective 

execution of land management prescriptions rests upon the success of Senator Tester’s and Senator Baucus’ Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, as does the hope that future political leaders will, with positive reinforcement, match their courage on this 

measure that has been decades in the making. Multigenerational conflict and hostilities so deepset and established that their reasons or causes are sometimes not 

even remembered are fading quickly now, as a result of the fledgling trust and 

shared hopes of the parties involved in this historic proposal. The decades of polarization-and their associated lack of productivity-will be a thing of the past, with the 

passage of this relatively small but landmark legislation. 

Wilderness.—The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, and the Three Rovers Challenge component within it, protects the first wilderness area in the Yaak ever, since 

the Yaak’s first omission from wilderness designation in 1964, when the Wilderness 

Act was originally passed. The Yaak Valley is one of Montana’s wildest and most 

biologically diverse; it is the only valley in the Lower 48 for which it can be said 

no species has gone extinct since the end of the last Ice Age. The Yaak has been 

identified by the public as well as the U.S. Forest Service as the most under-represented forest-type in the National Wilderness Preservation System in Region One, 

and some of the lands protected in the Three Rivers Challenge agreement within 

this legislation contain lands that received the highest wilderness capacity rating 

of any place on the Kootenai National Forest. 

Further, passage of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will help through its collaborative nature to detoxify the concept of wilderness in the region, which can only 

help the concept and future of wilderness in Montana. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, and the Three Rivers Challenge component within it, is good for wilderness, and we ask you to support its passage, after 45 years of waiting. 

Recreation Community.—The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will protect access 

for motorized as well as nonmotorized recreation opportunities, providing permanent 

access to current existing use by snowmobiles in portions of the Northwest Peaks, 

Buckhorn Ridge, and Mt. Henry Roadless areas, while identifying adjacent areas to 

be set aside for wildlife displacement. The needs of primitive campers and 

backcountry skiers have also been identified and provided for in our agreement. As 

well, our agreement calls for a study to help identify noncontroversial loop routes 

for ATV usage. By codifying existing usage and identifying protected areas, wise allocation of various noncompatible resource use is established, and recreational interests are rewarded and encouraged. 

We thank you again the committee for your kind attention to this matter on 

which we have labored with such diligence and commitment for so long-nearly half 

a century, in some instances-and we look forward to the positive community and 

cultural changes that will be accomplished at the state and regional level, and we 

wish to reiterate, again, our gratitude to our Senators for their bold leadership, 

which we hope the committee will fully support. 

Three Rivers Challenge Partnership Representatives: Wayne Hirst, Hirst and Associates Robyn King, Yaak Valley Forest Council Jerry Wandler, member, Troy 

Snowmobile Club Joel Chandler, member, Kootenai Ridge Riders Tim Linehan, 

Linehan Outfitting Company Donna O’Neil, member, Lincoln County Sno-Kats Rick 

Bass, Yaak Valley Forest Council 

47 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT MORRIS, PRESIDENT, DARRINGTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY, DARRINGTON, WA 

Greetings from the Pacific Northwest, 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about an issue that is very dear and personal to my community. My name is Scott Morris, and I am the president of the 

Darrington Historical Society. On behalf of the Historical Society, as well as many 

friends and neighbors, I respectfully request that the honorable members of this 

Subcommittee support S. 404 to preserve the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness. The lookout is threatened by a lawsuit that is attempting to 

remove it from the wilderness. 

Green Mountain Lookout is a symbolic icon for our small town in the North Cascades. It was built in 1933 with a strategic and expansive view of the forests up 

the Suiattle River and on the flanks of Glacier Peak’s volcanic ridges. In World War 

II it served as part of the early warning network of lookouts designed to spot aerial 

invasions of the West Coast. 

In the 1960s, it survived, avoiding the fate of most of its counterparts, which were 

burned and dismantled by the Forest Service. Fear of liability and the advent of airplanes spelled doom for most lookouts. Today, only 16 remain of the more than 90 

that were built in northwest Washington state. 

A few of those, such as Green Mountain Lookout, found themselves inside wilderness boundaries after passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 and subsequent wilderness expansions. In some cases, Congress has specifically exempted a few key lookouts from the law’s requirement that structures be left to rot naturally in the wilderness. Unfortunately, in 1984 when the Glacier Peak Wilderness was expanded 

to include Green Mountain’s summit, Congress did not make such an exemption for 

that lookout. I suspect the reason is simply because nobody could have foreseen that 

anybody would take issue with a historic restoration of the lookout two decades 

later. The lookout was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1987. 

Indeed, as the members of the Historical Society and the Darrington community 

came together during the 1990s to dream up and carry out the eventual historic restoration, the comments received by the Forest Service about the project were overwhelmingly supportive, with little or no opposition. 

The restoration that began in the late 1990s was completed on the mountaintop 

following appropriate environmental and historical restoration procedures, with a 

minimum of helicopter support. But by the summer of 2002, it became apparent 

that the foundation design was faulty. The lookout was leaning badly from heavy 

snows the previous winter. It was in clear danger of falling off the summit to its 

destruction under the weight of the next winter’s snows. 

Faced with a difficult decision, the Forest Service decided to remove Green Mountain Lookout, taking care to number and label the boards and windows so they could 

be reassembled in their proper places on a new, stronger foundation. 

Extreme floods and road washouts delayed the restoration until 2009, when the 

lookout was finally restored atop Green Mountain. In 2010, an out-of-state, hardline 

group called Wilderness Watch sued the Forest Service, alleging that the restoration 

violated the Wilderness Act. A U.S. District Court judge in Seattle agreed in 2012 

and ordered the Forest Service to remove the lookout. Later, the judge remanded 

the issue to the Forest Service as to how to comply with his order, and those who 

sued are pressuring the agency to remove the lookout as soon as this summer. 

Obviously time is of the essence. We are grateful to this subcommittee for giving 

this bill a hearing. A companion bill is already moving in the House. I testified in 

person last week at the House subcommittee hearing. Fortunately, fixing this problem is easy—Congress can simply exempt Green Mountain Lookout from the Wilderness Act and allow the Forest Service to maintain and restore it. Indeed, Wilderness 

Watch and U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour each pointed out that Congress 

has done so in other instances, including the Evergreen Mountain Lookout in the 

new Wild Sky Wilderness to the south of us. 

The legislation that our Washington state delegation in Congress was kind 

enough to move forward is a modest proposal, designed to build widespread, bipartisan support. We are not asking for a far-reaching bill that substantially changes 

the Wilderness Act. The exemption of Green Mountain Lookout does not represent 

some kind of camel’s nose in the tent that would somehow lead to resurrecting a 

bunch of long-dead lookouts in wilderness areas. The historical trend is that we are 

losing most of the CCC-era lookouts, and thus, Green Mountain Lookout merits an 

exemption. 

But don’t just take our word for it. We have a long list of supporters for this bill. 

The Wilderness Society, notably, supports S. 404. They see the lookout as enhancing 

the public’s enthusiasm for wilderness areas. The Nature Conservancy also supports 

48 

this bill. A broad range of local, state and national groups and legislators have 

joined with us to protect Green Mountain Lookout, from the National Trust for Historic Preservation (and its state affiliate), to the Forest Fire Lookouts Association, 

the Snohomish County Council and the Darrington Town Council, among others. 

Support among legislators is bipartisan—Republicans and Democrats alike stand 

behind this bill. The Everett Herald and Seattle Post-Intelligencer have each editorialized in favor of protecting the lookout. 

In the end, though, the reason so many of us feel strongly about this simple 14- 

by-14-foot mountaintop cabin is the sense of magic it conveys. I had the great fortune to visit Green Mountain Lookout last summer, and I was lucky enough to see 

firsthand the classic North Cascades lookout sunrise, with clouds filling the valleys, 

and only the tallest mountaintops peeking through while the sun turned everything 

pink. Standing on the catwalk, Green Mountain Lookout felt like a time machine, 

taking us back to the 1930s. It was easy to understand what drove the first generation of men and women in the Forest Service to staff these lookouts. Today, we face 

a vocal, extreme minority with no imagination who don’t get it. But for the rest of 

us, we have a legacy we are asking you to protect. Thanks for your time, and thanks 

for supporting S. 404. 

Sincerely, 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. BROWN, DIRECTOR OPERATIONS, WESTERN US REGION, GRAYMONT WESTERN US INC. 

ON S. 1169 AND S. 1309

Graymont Western US Inc is a member of the Graymont family of companies. 

Graymont is the second largest producer of lime in North America with facilities 

across Canada and the United States and a partnership with Grupo Calidra, the 

largest lime producer in Mexico. Graymont is a family owned company committed 

to improving our world by responsibly meeting society’s needs for quality lime and 

stone products. 

Graymont takes a long term view of its business and the lime industry, where 

investments are made based upon decades of expected production. Graymont has 

been in the lime business for over 50 years and operates facilities on sites that have 

been in operation for up to 200 years. Graymont is among the leaders in the industry in adding new efficient plants and equipment and operates some of the most 

modern facilities on the continent. 

Graymont would be directly impacted by S. 1169 and S. 1309 as these bills would 

authorize a withdrawal of public lands which includes the entire mine associated 

with the Graymont Indian Creek facility. Graymont supports S. 1169 as introduced 

by Senator Baucus and notes that this bill (and the related House of Representatives bills) is the only Limestone Hills withdrawal bill supported by the full Montana Congressional delegation. Graymont does not support S. 1309; specific comments on the two bills follow. 

Comments Specific to S. 1169 

The language in S. 1169 related to the protection of Graymont’s rights is similar 

to the Limestone Hills withdrawal language in H.R. 1672 and H.R. 1960, both of 

which Graymont supports. While Graymont prefers the language in the House bills 

we appreciate the work of Senator Baucus and Senator Tester (cosponsor of S. 1169) 

and Graymont supports S. 1169 as currently drafted. 

In the written testimony received by the Subcommittee from the Department of 

the Army in connection with Subsection 4(a)(3) of S. 1169 it was stated that ‘‘the 

Army strongly objects to this Subsection as it would grant particular mining claimants the ability to operate without regard for the withdrawal and reservation.’’ In 

addition, oral testimony on this issue was provided by Ms. Katherine Hammack at 

the July 30, 2013 hearing in response to a question from Chairman Manchin on the 

Subsection 4(a)(3) language. Ms. Hammack stated that: 

‘‘ . . . we are in support of the existing mining claims and the existing 

agreement... the language expands that to claims that have been closed 

or retired and allows additional claims to be allowed. So, it goes beyond the 

existing mining claims and so that is our objection is going beyond the existing agreement, the existing mining claims; essentially opens up the 

whole area.’’ 

Graymont appreciates that the Army supports the existing mining claims and the 

existing agreement among Graymont, the BLM, and the Montana Army National 

Guard. 

49 

However, the stated concern that the Subsection 4(a)(3) language allows 

Graymont to establish additional mining claims inside the entire withdrawal area 

is not supported by the language in S. 1169. Subsection 4(a)(3) does not mention 

additional claims and the Opportunity to Cure is clearly restricted to the land area 

subject to the approved plan of operations. There are 1,940 acres included in the 

approved plan of operations compared to a total of 18,644 acres included in the 

Limestone Hills withdrawal. Thus, in stark contrast to the provided testimony, 90% 

of the withdrawal area is unaffected by the language in Subsection 4(a)(3). 

Graymont submits that it has properly secured exclusive possession and enjoyment of its mining claims. Without the language of Subsection 4(a)(3) Graymont’s 

ability to maintain its existing mining claims under the Mining Law could potentially be adversely impacted by the withdrawal. 

Any legislative language that causes a reduction in Graymont’s rights must be 

evaluated as a cost of the withdrawal. Graymont’s mining operations began before 

the issuance of the improperly issued right-of-way and must be fully protected as 

a part of the withdrawal legislation. 

Comments Specific to S. 1309 

The language contained in S. 1309 mirrors the Administration’s proposal as part 

of the Senate National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), or S. 1034. Graymont 

does not support the S. 1309 (and related S. 1034) language. 

Graymont is concerned with the attempt to include the Limestone Hills Withdrawal as a part of a group of multiple withdrawals. The situation in the Limestone 

Hills is quite unique and does not lend itself to inclusion with other, more ‘traditional’ withdrawals. There is no other place in the United States where the military 

is proposing that a withdrawal surround a large existing mining operation with 

valid existing rights. 

More specifically, there is a significant inconsistency between the General Provisions language in Section 2933(a) being proposed for the group of several withdrawals and provisions unique to the Limestone Hills. Section 2933(a) would give 

the Secretary concerned the ability to unilaterally ‘‘require the closure to the public 

of any road, trail, or other portion of the lands withdrawn and reserved by a subchapter of this chapter, the Secretary may take such action as the Secretary determines necessary or desirable to effect and maintain such closure.’’ (Emphasis supplied). This is in conflict with the language of Section 2957d(a) which states: ‘‘The 

Secretary of the Army shall make no determination that the disposition of or exploration for minerals as provided in the approved plan of operations is inconsistent 

with the defense-related uses of the lands covered by the military land withdrawal.’’ 

It is not realistic for Graymont to conduct its mining operations if the company 

was constantly exposed to the possibility that the Secretary could close the area of 

the withdrawal to mining operations simply because it was determined to be desirable. 

Graymont also has a concern that S. 1309 lacks the level of specificity regarding 

the issues to be included in the Implementation Agreement for Mining Activities 

(Subsection 2957d(d) of S. 1309 compared to Section 4(c) of S. 1169. S. 1309 also 

lacks reference to continuing the existing 2005 Memorandum of Agreement signed 

by Graymont, the BLM, and the Montana Army National Guard until the Implementation Agreement is executed. 

Finally, Section 2961c(b) includes language specific to the Twentynine Palms, 

California withdrawal. However, this section includes puzzling language which 

states that the Secretary of the Army may pay Broadwater County, Montana 

$1,000,000 to offset the 25-year loss of payments in lieu of taxes for lands included 

in the Limestone Hills, Montana withdrawal. In contrast, S. 1169 at Section 7 provides that the withdrawn lands will remain eligible for payments in lieu of taxes 

citing ‘‘section 6901 of title 31, United States Code.’’ Graymont is unclear if this language in S. 1309 was included in error or why the language related to a Montana 

withdrawal has been included in the details of a California withdrawal. 

Due to the above issues, Graymont requests that the current Limestone Hills 

withdrawal language be removed from S. 1309 and the language of S. 1169 be 

adopted as a separate withdrawal without amendment. 

Background Information on Graymont’s Limestone Hills Montana Operations 

Graymont’s Montana facility is the Indian Creek plant located near Townsend, 

Montana. The plant is just north of the Limestone Hills and is connected to the 

mine by a conveyor belt. Graymont currently employees 34 full-time employees in 

both the mine and the processing plant. In addition, there are 11 persons on the 

contract mining crew that works predominantly in the mine. These are stable, high 

50 

paying mining jobs that are vital to the economy of Townsend, Broadwater County, 

and the State of Montana. 

Under its previous name of Continental Lime, Inc., Graymont began its activity 

in the Limestone Hills in 1979 when the first unpatented mining claims were located. In 1981 Continental Lime obtained Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of its first plan of operations and mining in the Limestone Hills has been 

continuous since that date. Under the Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. § 26.), in order 

to conduct its operations a mining claimant ‘‘shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all of the surface included within the lines or their locations.’’ 

Maintaining exclusive possession and enjoyment of the area of its operations is critical to Graymont. 

In October 2010 the BLM and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

approved Graymont’s most recent life-of-mine plan of operations covering a total 

land area of 1,940 acres. 

Lime is produced at the Indian Creek plant in two coal/coke fired preheater kilns. 

The plant is equipped with lime sizing and storage facilities allowing Graymont to 

produce and store a full range of bulk quicklime products. High purity limestone 

from the quarry is trucked to a crushing plant where it is sized and conveyed to 

a large storage pile adjacent to the preheater kilns. Bulk truck loading facilities are 

provided at the plant site and rail loading is available through a terminal located 

on the Montana Rail Link line in Townsend. 

Value of the Graymont Indian Creek Facility 

The Final Legislative Environment Impact Statement prepared by the Montana 

Army National Guard and the Bureau of Land Management in 2008 in connection 

with the Limestone Hills Training Area Land Withdrawal contains, as an appendix, 

a report titled ‘‘Geology, Mineral Occurrences and Economic Resources Potential of 

the Limestone Hills Training Area.’’ The report contains an economic evaluation of 

the Indian Creek Mine. Subsequent to the time the report was prepared Graymont 

has obtained the approval of both the BLM and The Montana Department of Environment Quality for the ‘‘life-of-mine’’ expansion described in the report. Therefore, 

Graymont has the needed life-of-mine permit to continue its operations as far south 

as the area identified in the report as the Southeastern Extension Zone. 

Page 48 of the geologic report notes that the value of the material quarried at Indian Creek is between $9 and $12 per ton of material quarried. The report also 

estimates approximately 121 million tons of quarry reserves under the ‘‘Moderate 

Mining Scenario’’. Thus, a very rough calculation yields an economic value of the 

mineable resource of at least $1.1 billion. 

It is Graymont’s position that any language that is contained in the withdrawal 

legislation which results in a taking of Graymont’s existing rights will be actionable 

and should be calculated and used in scoring the proposed legislation. 

History of Montana Army National Guard Activity 

The Montana Army National Guard has conducted training activities in the Limestone Hills for over 50 years. In the early days those training activities were conducted pursuant to periodically issued BLM special land use permits. All special 

land use permits expired prior to 1984. The Guard currently conducts its training 

activities under a 30 year right-of-way issued to the State of Montana effective on 

March 26, 1984. By its terms the right-of-way is both ‘‘nonexclusive’’ and 

‘‘nonpossessory.’’ Neither a special land use permit nor a right-of-way prevents the 

location of mining claims. 

By letter dated January 15, 1993 the BLM informed the Guard that ‘‘a 20,080 

acre training range is beyond the scope of activity to be authorized by a right-ofway and your current use is not properly authorized according to the IBLA decision.’’ (Emphasis supplied). The letter went on to say: ‘‘Therefore, we are requesting 

the MTARNG to submit an application for withdrawal of the Limestone Hills training range by the end of 1993, and to take all possible action toward securing a withdrawal by the end of 1997.’’ The suggested withdrawal is the subject matter of the 

present proposed legislation. The Guard has continued to conduct its operations 

under the terms of the unauthorized right-of-way pending the action by Congress 

on the withdrawal application. The right-of-way will terminate on March 26, 2014 

and the BLM has indicated it will not be extended. 

Cooperative Relationship 

The BLM’s 1993 letter was, in part, in response to a Graymont application to expand its mining operations further into the area where the Guard was conducting 

training activities. The BLM was concerned for public safety and liability issues 

given the joint activities in the area. Following extensive negotiations in 1997, the 

BLM, Guard and Graymont agreed that continued multiple use of the Limestone 

51 

Hills area was possible. The parties arrived at a consensus as to how the joint use 

could occur. 

Subsequently the three parties have worked cooperatively to ensure that joint operations can occur while protecting public safety and appropriately allocating liability. The most recent confirmation of that relationship is contained in a Memorandum of Agreement among the three parties dated in February, 2005. 

Graymont looks forward to continuing the joint use of the Limestone Hills in a 

manner that will allow both Graymont and the Department of the Army to accomplish their respective missions. 

GREATER YELLOWSTONE COALITION, 

July 29, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 221 Dirksen Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWKSI, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 709 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOE MANCHIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests & Mining,306 Hart Senate Office 

Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests & Mining, 307 Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: Greater Yellowstone Coalition Support for the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMEN AND RANKING MEMBERS, 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer written testimony for the record on S. 37— 

the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. 

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, representing 40,000 members and supporters 

from across the country, strongly supports S. 37, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act 

of 2013. As a regional conservation organization, the Coalition’s mission is to protect 

the lands, waters and wildlife of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem now and for 

future generations. The protection, restoration and stewardship of southwest Montana’s public lands which will result from this bill’s passage will substantially benefit the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Because of their proximity to Yellowstone 

National Park, these lands are of national significance and critically important to 

the long-term conservation of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The bill’s passage 

will benefit the American people as well as future generations by protecting and restoring important habitats that safeguard the region’s iconic fish and wildlife. 

The people of Montana strongly support of this legislation. The bill has united diverse interests to work together toward better conservation of our public lands. For 

this reason, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act enjoys broad, bi-partisan support 

from across the state. 

Conservation Benefits: 

This bill will protect and restore Greater Yellowstone’s natural heritage. Wilderness designations in Greater Yellowstone—the Snowcrest and Centennial Mountains, the Ruby Mountains, additions to the Lee Metcalf Wilderness, and the 

Blacktail range—protect some of the last and best unroaded backcountry habitats 

in the Montana part of the ecosystem. These core habitats are vital to the ecosystem’s iconic wildlife. These wilderness areas also protect the headwaters of many 

of Greater Yellowstone’s most famous rivers, including the Ruby, Missouri, Jefferson, and Madison. Further west, designations in the Pioneers, the Big Hole, Italian 

and Lima Peaks and Sapphires will protect important linkage habitats, ensuring 

wide-roaming species continue to disperse across southwest Montana’s landscape. 

Such dispersal is essential for maintaining the long-term genetic viability of sensitive species such as grizzly bears and wolves. 

The restoration and stewardship projects provided for in the bill will heal lands 

damaged by past practices, restoring fish passage in cold water streams and reducing road densities that diminish habitat quality for a variety of species. These restoration activities will become increasingly important to ensure our fish and wildlife 

populations are resilient in the face of a changing climate. 

52 

Broad Coalition and collaboration 

The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act is the result of three place-based collaborations that brought diverse interests together to solve the challenges confronting 

Montana’s national forests. As a regional conservation organization, focused on only 

a portion of Montana, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition was not a part of these 

original collaborations. In July, 2009, because of the benefits to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem resulting from S. 37, we joined the coalition supporting this legislation. Our involvement and input has been welcomed by all of the diverse partners. 

Key components of the bill, particularly the inclusion of the Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas, reflect the responsiveness of the original collaborations and Senator Tester to our input. 

The collaboration that forms the foundation of the bill has continued throughout 

the bill’s legislative journey. Senator Tester hosted numerous public meetings to 

gather feedback from diverse Montanans. He used that input, as well as his work 

with the Forest Service to address their concerns, to strengthen the bill which is 

reflected in the version introduced to the 113th Congress. The Greater Yellowstone 

Coalition is committed to the continued collaboration necessary to both pass and implement the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. 

We greatly appreciate the hard work of Senator Tester and his staff on S. 37 and 

urge the subcommittee to support its passage. 

Wilderness designations 

Approximately 170,000 acres of the almost 670,000 acres of wilderness proposed 

in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act lie within Southwest Montana’s portion of the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Places such as the Ruby and Centennial Mountains, the additions to the Lee Metcalf Wilderness and the Snowcrest Range are hidden gems in Greater Yellowstone where Montana families and visitors hunt, fish, 

hike and camp. These lands provide important wildlife habitat for big game, rare 

predators and other wildlife that roam across the landscape. In particular, these 

areas boast some of the state’s largest elk herds, longest antelope migrations, and 

most robust moose populations. Given these wildlife values, it is no surprise that 

50 percent of the state’s elk harvest comes from this part of Southwest Montana. 

Wolverine, grizzly bears and wolves also depend upon these wild lands for core, 

secure habitat far from roads as well as important linkage habitats that ensure they 

can roam the landscape. The wild lands protected under S. 37 which lie beyond the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem serve as vital stepping stones, keeping Greater Yellowstone connected to central Idaho wildlands and the northern Continental Divide 

ecosystem, ensuring wildlife can continue to disperse across southwest Montana. 

Such dispersal and migration is essential for the long-term genetic health of these 

rare, crucial and vulnerable species. For these reasons, we support all of the wilderness designations contained in the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. 

We offer the following specific comments regarding several of the proposed wilderness areas of particular importance to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Mount Jefferson 

This 4,500 acre proposed wilderness on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

generates passionate attention from many constituents and vocal opposition from 

snowmobile interests. Mount Jefferson deserves wilderness protection both on its 

own merits and to protect the integrity of the adjacent BLM Centennial Mountains 

wilderness, also included in S. 37. The wilderness boundary as proposed in S. 37 

should remain intact for the following reasons: 

1. High conservation value.—The Mount Jefferson proposed wilderness includes Hellroaring Creek basin, the farthest and highest headwaters of the Missouri River. Contiguous with the proposed BLM Centennial Mountains wilderness, the two areas combined create almost 30,000 acres of wilderness on the 

north side of the Centennial Mountains. 

Mount Jefferson and the Centennials provide secure habitat for Greater 

Yellowstone’s most valued and iconic wildlife. Moose winter among the subalpine fir along Hellroaring Creek. The area provides important security 

cover for elk in the fall during big game hunting seasons in both Montana 

and Idaho. Grizzly bears and wolverine, both icons of wildness that need 

remote backcountry to survive, use the Hellroaring drainage as important 

habitat. 

As a rare east-west trending mountain range, Mount Jefferson and the 

Centennial Mountains function as an important linkage between the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and the wildlands of central Idaho. Wide-ranging 

species such as wolves, bears and wolverines use this important corridor. 

53 

* All attachments have been retained in subcommittee files. 

Ensuring this region can still function as a linkage requires protecting large 

chunks of public land from habitat fragmentation. 

The new wilderness proposed in S. 37 is adjacent to federally designated 

wilderness on the Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, a 32,350-acre 

wetland wilderness in the heart of the Centennial Valley. Over 20,000 acres 

in conservation easements protect private lands surrounding the wildlife 

refuge. Thus, the wilderness designations included in S. 37 add to a remarkable conservation legacy—resulting in over 80,000 acres of protected 

land—in an ecologically important part of Greater Yellowstone. 

2. Montana jobs and economic opportunity 

Locally owned Montana businesses depend upon the quiet recreation opportunities found on the Montana side of the Centennial Mountains. 

Hellroaring Ski Adventures based in West Yellowstone, operates a 

backcountry hut and guided ski touring business in the Hellroaring Creek 

drainage. This is the only such operation in this part of Montana, providing 

a unique experience for the public on BLM and National Forest lands. 

In the summer and fall, Centennial Outfitters, in Lima, MT, offers 

backcountry pack trips and fishing adventures in the area. Both of these 

businesses are negatively impacted by increasing snowmobile use on the 

Montana side of Mount Jefferson. Centennial Outfitters routinely finds broken windshields, oil cans, pieces of rubber, and other debris from 

snowmobiling. Hellroaring Ski Adventures’ clients have experienced direct 

conflicts with snowmobilers, including noise, while seeking a quiet winter 

recreational experience. Outdoor shops catering to quiet recreation in the 

communities surrounding the Centennial Mountains support wilderness 

designation for Montana’s side of Mount Jefferson. 

3. Ensuring a balance of recreational opportunities in Southwest Montana 

In addition to providing refuge for wildlife, Mount Jefferson and the 

Hellroaring drainage offer outstanding opportunities for quiet recreation in 

every season. Hunting, fishing, skiing, hiking, camping and horse packing 

are all popular activities. There is only very limited motorized access from 

the Montana side of the Centennial Mountains. As a result, Mount Jefferson and the northern Centennials are known as some of the wildest 

backcountry in Montana, offering solitude and quiet for those seeking a wilderness experience. 

With regard to winter recreation specifically, the snowmobiling community’s interest in continued access to Montana’s portion of Mount Jefferson 

must be understood in the context of snowmobiling opportunities across the 

broader landscape. To suggest that closing Montana’s side of Mount Jefferson to snowmobiling will negatively impact the economy of communities in 

Eastern Idaho is inaccurate. In fact, leaving the Montana side of Mount Jefferson open to snowmobiling eliminates one of the few opportunities for 

quiet, human-powered winter recreationists to escape the din of snow machines. Analysis of data for public lands within a 20-mile radius of Island 

Park, Idaho shows that 98 percent of those lands, or 297,933 acres, are currently open to snowmobiles. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, by protecting the entire Hellroaring basin and the Montana side of Mount Jefferson, would reduce this acreage by a mere 2,344 acres, bringing the percentage of public lands open to snowmobiles in the Greater Island Park area 

to 97 percent. (See Attachments* A and B which include maps depicting 

this analysis). 

On a broader scale, of the 3 million total acres on the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest, which surrounds Eastern Idaho’s communities, nearly 2.5 

million acres are open to snowmobiles while just 545,000 acres are protected for non-motorized winter activities. In Montana, on the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest, 2,049,099 acres are open to snowmobiling. Immediately north of the Centennial Mountains, much of the Gravelly Range 

is open for winter motorized recreation. 

Furthermore, the Idaho side of both Mount Jefferson and Rheas Peak will 

remain open to snowmobiling, offering similar terrain and high marking opportunities in the vicinity of Island Park. (See Attachments C and D which 

include photos of these peaks). 

For Mount Jefferson and the Centennial Mountains, the relevant compromise on land use was struck in 1991. Of the 93,000 acres in the 

54 

Centennials evaluated for wilderness suitability (including lands in both 

Idaho and Montana), the BLM recommended 28,000 acres for wilderness 

designation in Montana—including Mount Jefferson—and released 70 percent of the study area for non-wilderness use. No adjacent lands in Idaho 

were recommended for wilderness designation. 

4. A partial designation will not work: Over a decade of experience managing 

the Hellroaring drainage to protect both wilderness values and to allow 

snowmobiling access clearly demonstrates that a partial wilderness designation 

for Mount Jefferson will not work. 

Documented illegal snowmobile use in the BLM Centennial Wilderness 

Study Area led the BLM to repeatedly request that the Forest Service close 

the Mount Jefferson area to snowmobiles. Since 2001, the Forest Service 

has partially closed Forest Service lands in the Hellroaring basin to snowmobiles. During the winter, routine agency patrols consistently find evidence of trespass into both the BLM Wilderness Study area and the portion 

of Forest Service land closed to snowmobiles. Increased signage and patrols, 

aimed at reducing violations, have met with little success. (See Attachment 

E which provides photo documentation of snowmobile trespass). 

In its final Forest Plan, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest 

dropped the southern half of the Mount Jefferson/ Hellroaring area from its 

list of recommended wilderness, leaving it open to snowmobile access. This 

decision is topographically unenforceable as the boundary between the open 

and closed areas runs along an indistinct ridge from the summit of Mount 

Jefferson. Although the closed area is well signed, enforcement of the 

boundary continues to be extremely difficult. Continued violations of the 

BLM Centennial Wilderness are certain under a partial closure, leading to 

more conflicts. (Attachment F includes a topographic map of the area). 

Recognizing that this partial designation would create ongoing enforcement challenges, the final Forest Plan commits the Forest Service to monitoring, enforcement, and a reassessment of the decision if illegal intrusions 

into closed areas continue. Specifically, the Forest Plan Record of Decision 

states: 

‘‘ . . . The combination of uses allowed on Mt. Jefferson under the Revised Forest Plan represents a management challenge, because the boundary between the motorized and non-motorized use areas does not follow an 

effective topographical barrier to illegal motorized entry . . . If monitoring 

reveals that non-compliance is an issue, the decision to allow snowmobiling 

on Mt Jefferson will be re-evaluated.’’.p. 21, Record of Decision, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Revised Forest Plan) 

To protect the integrity of the proposed wilderness designations for the 

Centennial, it will be imperative that the Forest Service follows through on 

this management promise to close the area to snowmobiling if trespass continues. 

Snowcrest Mountains 

The Snowcrest Mountains proposed wilderness—the largest wilderness included 

in S. 37—represents a unique addition to the National Wilderness System. The 

Snowcrest Mountains, considered in conjunction with the adjacent Blacktail and 

Robb Ledford State Game Ranges, provide a large block of secure wildlife habitat 

at the western edge of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. The Snowcrest Wilderness will protect unique and varied habitat types, including rolling sagebrush hills, 

whitebark pine stands, aspen, and alpine grasslands. The Snowcrests offer some of 

the highest quality wolverine habitat in southwest Montana. Wolves, bears, mountain lion and large elk herds roam these remote mountains. Due to the abundance 

of big game, the Snowcrest Mountains are among the most heavily hunted areas in 

Montana. Streams on the eastern side of the Snowcrest Mountains feed the famed 

Ruby River which is noted for both trout and grayling fisheries. 

Traditional ranching uses will continue in the Snowcrest Mountains under S. 37, 

and specific language in Section 204(m)(1-2) provides for continued motorized access 

to maintain existing water impoundments and to trail sheep across the range to 

summer pasture. We appreciate the improvements made in this section, especially 

language tying the continued trailing of sheep across the Snowcrests to the tenure 

of the grazing allotments in the Gravelly Mountains. We believe as currently written, this section captures a workable compromise that maintains the Forest Service’s authority to appropriately manage grazing in Wilderness. 

55 

BLM Wilderness Study Areas 

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition specifically requested that administratively 

designated Wilderness Study Areas within the Dillon Resource Area be addressed 

by S. 37. These island mountain ranges provide important wildlife habitat and 

connectivity for wide-ranging species that reside in southwest Montana. We strongly 

support the proposed wilderness designations for portions of the Ruby, Blacktail and 

Centennial Mountains Wilderness Study Areas managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management. As wilderness, these lands will continue to function as refugia for 

critically important wildlife. 

We also strongly support the addition of the East Fork of Blacktail Wilderness 

Study Area to the BLM proposed wilderness areas. In earlier versions of the Forest 

Jobs and Recreation Act, this BLM WSA was slated to be released from wilderness 

study status. This WSA sits in the middle of a landscape managed for wilderness 

and conservation purposes because it is contiguous to the Forest Service Snowcrest 

proposed wilderness and adjacent to two Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Wildlife 

Management Areas. This WSA has significant value for the conservation of Greater 

Yellowstone’s wildlife and fisheries, and will be an excellent addition to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. 

GYC also recommends that the Peet Creek/Price Creek parcel in the western Centennial Mountains be added to the proposed Centennial Mountains Wilderness with 

a cherry stemmed boundary to accommodate the existing improved logging road in 

the E. Fork of Peet Creek. This is the largest of the five parcels recommended for 

release from the BLM Centennial Wilderness Study Area (approximately 3,800 

acres). This parcel has significant conservation value for big game, wolverine, bears 

and westslope cutthroat trout. Its protection as wilderness enhances the Centennial 

Mountains wildlife linkage area and connectivity between Greater Yellowstone and 

Central Idaho. 

Forest Management & Stewardship 

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition supports the restoration emphasis of S. 37. 

Using stewardship contracts to fund road rehabilitation, stream restoration and 

habitat revitalization will benefit native fish and wildlife. In the southwest Montana 

portion of Greater Yellowstone, there are areas, such as the West Fork of the Madison River and the southern Tobacco Root Mountains, that would benefit from the 

stewardship projects conducted under S. 37. 

The impact of this legislation on inventoried roadless lands on the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest not recommended as wilderness is of particular importance to us. Three elements of the bill combine to sufficiently ensure these roadless 

lands will continue to provide core, secure habitat for fish and wildlife. The following elements of the bill must be retained in final legislation: 

• Section 104 (a)(4) of S. 37 directs the Secretary to prioritize lands for stewardship projects which already have road densities in excess of 1.5 miles per square 

mile; that are within the wildland-urban interface; where habitat connectivity 

is already compromised due to past practices; and where forests are at high risk 

of severe wildfire. We believe this language appropriately focuses stewardship 

logging and restoration activities in previously roaded and developed areas of 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. 

• All stewardship projects are to be conducted in accordance with existing environmental laws, regulations and administrative directives. Thus, the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule currently in effect in Region 1 of the U.S. Forest Service will continue to apply to projects conducted under the provisions of 

this bill. 

• Forest Plan designations of appropriate lands for timber harvest will guide 

where stewardship projects occur. On the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, lands designated as ‘‘suitable for timber production’’ do not include any inventoried 

roadless lands. Lands designated as ‘‘timber harvest allowed to meet other resource objectives’’ do include inventoried roadless lands; however, projects in 

this category must comply with national roadless policies and directives. 

For these reasons, we believe S. 37 sufficiently protects the conservation values 

of inventoried roadless lands. We believe the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will 

help improve the stewardship and management of national forest lands in Montana 

and benefit the northwest corner of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Conclusion.—S. 37 is a balanced vision for protecting and restoring public land 

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition strongly supports S. 37 and believes it provides 

a balanced approach to protecting and restoring public land in Montana. By protecting key public lands in southwest Montana, S. 37 contributes significantly to the 

56 

long-term conservation of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, an area of great importance to Montanans and all Americans. We appreciate the hard work that has 

gone into strengthening the bill since it was originally introduced in 2009. We look 

forward to working with the Subcommittee, the Forest Service, the Obama Administration, and everyone who shares the goals of this bill to continue to refine and implement this vision for protecting our most cherished lands, restoring our forests 

and sustaining our communities. 

We sincerely thank Senator Tester for his leadership in drafting this important 

legislation and his ongoing work to see it enacted. We also thank Senator Baucus 

for his co-sponsorship. This legislation enjoys unprecedented support across Montana as diverse interests unite behind our Senate delegation to protect and restore 

our treasured public lands. 

GYC supports S. 37 as a new way to do business for the Forest Service and for 

Montana. We urge the Subcommittee to approve the bill and forward it to the full 

Senate for its consideration. 

Sincerely, 

CAROLINE BYRD, 

Executive Director. 

BARB CESTERO, 

Montana Director. 

BACK COUNTRY HORSEMEN OF AMERICA, 

Graham, WA, July 8, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. DOC HASTINGS, 

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

Hon. ED MARKEY, 

U.S. House of Representatives Washington DC. 

RE: Support for H.R. 908/S.404, the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection 

Act 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN, CHAIRMAN HASTINGS, RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI

AND RANKING MEMBER MARKEY, 

On behalf of Back Country Horsemen of America, I urge you to take timely action 

to consider HR 908/S.404, the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act, introduced in February by Representatives DelBene and Larsen and Senators Murray 

and Cantwell. 

H.R. 908/S.404 would ensure the continued operation and maintenance of the historic Green Mountain fire lookout within Washington’s Glacier Peak Wilderness 

Area. For decades, the Green Mountain lookout has been a popular destination for 

hikers seeking to enjoy impressive vistas, endless acres of wildflowers and the experience associated with visiting a historical fire lookout. Even though horse use is 

not allowed on the Green Mountain Trail, we nonetheless support H.R. 908/S.404 

as an important means to promote human use and enjoyment of wilderness. 

Built in 1933 by the Civilian Conservation Corps, the historic Green Mountain 

lookout is listed with the National Register of Historic Places. The Forest Service 

still utilizes Green Mountain as a functioning fire lookout as well as to house seasonal staff who provide educational information to wilderness visitors. 

The Green Mountain lookout provides important benefits to the preservation of 

the Glacier Peak Wilderness and the education of wilderness visitors. If Congress 

does not act, the lookout will be removed or destroyed and a local treasure will be 

lost. We urge you to ensure passage of the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act to ensure the permanent preservation of this important resource. We 

stand ready to support you in this effort. Page 2 Green Mountain Lookout Heritage 

Protection Act HR 908/S.404July 8, 2013 Thank you for your efforts to preserve 

America’s wilderness. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL K. MCGLENN, 

Past Chairman, BCHA. 

57 

STATEMENT OF ANDY HAFEN, MAYOR, CITY OF HENDERSON, NV 

Summary Overview 

The Three Kids Mine legislation is essential to the implementation of an innovative public/private partnership that the City and its Redevelopment Agency have 

pursued to resolve a longstanding blight in our community, namely, environmental 

contamination and public safety hazards associated with the abandoned Three Kids 

Mine. 

Henderson is located just south of the City of Las Vegas. From its origins as the 

townsite adjacent to a World War II-era federal magnesium production plant, Henderson has grown since its 1953 incorporation to become the second largest city in 

Nevada, with over 270,000 residents and encompassing over 100 square miles of 

land. Henderson has been nationally recognized for the quality of life oiTered to its 

residents as well as its favorable business climate. We are proud of our progressive 

approach to careful planning and sustainable development as well as our demonstrated commitment to the environment. 

The proposed remediation and redevelopment site consists of approximately 1,262 

acres of Federal and private lands within the City. The Three Kids Mine was owned 

and operated by various parties, including the United States, as an open pit manganese mine and milling operation from approximately 1917 through 1961. The site 

also was used to store Federal manganese ore reserves until 2003. In the half century since mining operations ceased, residential development has occurred next to 

the site. The site today contains unstable open pits as deep as 400 feet, large volumes of mine overburden and tailings, and mill facility foundations. Contaminants 

of concern include arsenic, lead and petroleum compounds. 

S. 343 would require the Secretary of the Interior to convey the 948 acres 

ofFederallands at the overall 1,262-acre project site to the Henderson Redevelopment Agency or the responsible party designated by the Henderson Redevelopment 

Agency to complete assessment, remediation, reclamation and redevelopment of the 

Three Kids Mine Project Site. Fair market value would take into account the costs 

of investigating and cleaning up the entire mine and mill site, which includes 314 

acres of now-private lands that were used historically in mine operations. Such costs 

would be calculated only after a comprehensive site assessment, and using nationally recognized remediation cost estimating methodologies. Finally, before the Federal lands are conveyed, the State must execute a comprehensive Mine Remediation 

and Reclamation Agreement with a private sector entity under which the cleanup 

of the entire site will occur. The enforceable agreement must include financial assurances to ensure timely performance and completion of the cleanup project. At 

this time, the City has an agreement in force with Lakemoor Development, known 

as the Master Development Planning Agreement that was executed on August 3, 

2011. 

Reclaiming the Three Kids Mine site will require the management of at least 12 

million cubic yards of mine residue. The proposed ‘‘Presumptive Cleanup Remedy’’ 

is to use the existing onsite mine pits as permanent repositories for the mine residue, but only after site characterization, detailed engineering, and in accordance 

with a step-by-step work plan that will be implemented pursuant to the required 

Mine Remediation and Reclamation Agreement. Complete, permanent, and protective cleanup of the site is a high priority for the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection as well as for the City and its residents. It is time to remove this blight 

from our community and it is for this primary reason that the City is engaged in 

this effort. 

There are two important aspects of this planned remediation project to be highlighted. First, the estimated 350 million dollar cleanup will be ilnanced with private 

capital and Nevada tax increment financing at no cost to the Federal Government. 

The Nevada Community Redevelopment Law allows the Henderson Redevelopment 

Agency to ilnance the cleanup of blight conditions such as an abandoned mine 

through use of an ‘‘increment’’ of property taxes collected within a designated redevelopment area over a 30-year ‘‘capture period.’’ The ‘‘increment’’ is a portion of the 

assessed value of the property which increases in value following cleanup and as 

the subsequent commercial and residential redevelopment build-out occurs. Henderson annexed the Three Kids Mine site and placed it in the Lakemoor Canyon Redevelopment Area in 2009. The use of tax increment financing available through the 

Henderson Redevelopment Agency is critical to the long-term success of this project. 

Second, only through the assemblage of the 948 acres of Federal lands with the 

314 acres of private lands can a cost effective and comprehensive cleanup be 

achieved. As the large pits suitable for use as mine residue repositories are located 

on the private lands, cleanup of the Federal lands without having the pits available 

as on-site mine residue repositories would require cost-prohibitive excavation, transVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
58 

portation and off site residue disposal at a permitted landfill. Cleanup solely of the 

private lands also is not a viable option because limiting the redevelopment area 

to only 314 acres would not generate sufficient tax increment to render cleanup and 

redevelopment economically feasible. In addition, it would be inappropriate for the 

City to authorize residential and commercial development on what effectively would 

be an ‘‘island’’ of property immediately abutting unremediated environmental and 

public safety hazards. 

In summary closing, enactment of S. 343 is essential for the City and its Redevelopment Agency to move ahead on this unique public/private partnership strategy to 

clean up the Three Kids Mine site. For over four years, the City of Henderson has 

worked closely with stakeholders including the Department of the Interior and the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to advance this project. While much 

work remains ahead, we are confident that the Three Kids Mine site can be successfully reclaimed through this program, ultimately resulting in the resolution of a 

longstanding environmental problem. We are working with the author to make some 

minor changes to clarify that the responsible party will be a private sector entity 

designated by the Henderson Redevelopment Agency to complete assessment, remediation, reclamation and redevelopment of the Three Kids Mine Project Site. 

Policy Rationale for Adjustment of Fair Market Value 

The policy rationale behind the provision of the bill which would obligate the Secretary of the Interior to administratively adjust the fair market value of the 948 

acres of Federal land proposed for conveyance based on a reasonable approximate 

estimation of the costs to investigate and remediate both the Federal land and the 

314 acres of private land included in the overa11 1,262-acre project site. 

Manganese is essential to iron and steel production and during the 1940s and 

1950s, the Three Kids Mine was one of the primary domestic sources of manganese 

in the United States. Historical documents gathered from the National Archives indicate that the United States was integrally involved in mining and milling operations at the Three Kids Mine site during this period. In addition, the United States 

leased portions of the private land at the site until 2003 for the storage of Federal 

stockpiles of manganese. 

In 1942, the Defense Plant Corporation (DPC), a federal instrumentality, acquired 

from Manganese Ore Company surface rights to approximately 446 acres at the site, 

including most of the now-private land, for the development of an ore processing 

mill and related facilities. The DPC contracted with Manganese Ore Company to 

construct the mill. Title to the plant site and mill facilities was vested in the DPC. 

The DPC leased the plant site and mill facilities to another federal instrumentality, the Metals Reserve Company (MRC), which in turn entered into contracts 

with Manganese Ore Company for the procurement of crude ore, the operation of 

the mill, and the purchase of manganese nodule output for national defense purposes. The DPC and MRC contracts vested the Federal government with rights to 

approve all significant aspects of the construction and operation of the mine and 

mill, which included the use of large tailings ponds that today contain several million cubic yards of contaminated waste material up to sixty feet in depth. 

The WWII-era mill was deactivated in 1944, although Federal ore stockpiles remained at the site. The DPC interests transferred Erst to the War Assets Administration, which tried unsuccessfully to sell the mine facilities, and then to the General Services Administration. In the early 1950s, the mill was updated and the mine 

and mill were reactivated by Manganese, Inc. under contracts with the GSA. In 

1955, Manganese, Inc. purchased the real property at the Site that had been under 

Federal ownership. Manganese, Inc. continued to mine and benef1ciate ore for the 

United States under the GSA contracts until closure of the mine and mill in 1961. 

In addition, until 2003 private land at the site was leased to the GSA and, later, 

the Defense Logistics Agency, for the storage of processed manganese nodules under 

the Federal strategic materials stockpile program. These mining, milling, stockpiling, and associated activities resulted in extensive environmental contamination 

of the project site, including most of the now-private land and substantial portions 

of the Federal land. 

In light of the extensive involvement of the United States in historical mine and 

mill operations on both the Federal and private lands at the site, Henderson believes it only appropriate for the estimated costs of cleaning up the entire site to 

be addressed by the Secretary of the Interior in administratively adjusting the fair 

market value of the 948 acres of Federal land as would be required under S. 343. 

It is the assemblage of the Federal land with the private land as facilitated by the 

legislation that makes remediation of the entire site feasible and economically practicable. 

59 

STATEMENT OF ROGER NATSUHARA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY (ENERGY, 

INSTALLATIONS & ENVIRONMENT) DEPARTMENT OF NAVY

I write today to request that you introduce the Administration’s legislative withdrawal proposal, which includes reauthorization of two existing Department of the 

Navy military land withdrawals, Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range 

(CMAGR) and Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake (NAWSCL), both of which 

are in California and will expire on October 31, 2014; and a withdrawal proposal 

to expand the training capacity and capability ofthe Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California. 

These withdrawals are critical to national defense. CMAGR is the Marine Corps 

preeminent aerial bombing range and their only aviation range capable of supporting precision guided munitions. It is also where Navy Special Warfare units 

complete their final complex pre-deployment training. NAWSCL is the Navy’s premier weapons test and evaluation center. The expansion of Twentynine Palms is 

necessary to address a critical and documented training and readiness shortfall. Although Twentynine Palms has served the Marine Corps well since the 1940s, lack 

of sufficient training space inhibits us from properly training Marine Expeditionary 

Brigades, the Marine Corps’ preeminent 21st Century fighting force. Successful 

training ofthis highly specialized and complex war fighting unit of 15,000 Marines 

requires air-ground training on land dedicated to exclusive military use that allows 

for simultaneous air and ground live-fire. 

Under existing law, only Congress can withdraw public lands, exceeding 5,000 

acres, from the public domain for defense purposes. The Administration’s legislative 

proposal to extend the CMAGR and NAWSCL land withdrawals and to withdraw 

Department of Interior (Dol) lands in Johnson Valley to expand Twentynine Palms, 

was included in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act legislative proposal and is the joint product of a Department of Defense and 

Dol agreement after a more than two year collaborative process. Failure to withdraw these lands would materially affect military readiness. 

I look forward to working with you and your staff in pursuit of this important 

legislation. I pledge the full support of my staff should you need any information 

or assistance as this legislation is considered. Thank you for your continued support. 

MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION, 

Helena, MT, August 1, 2013. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen 

Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN AND RANKING MEMBER MURKOWSKI, 

On behalf of the Montana Wilderness Association, and our more than 5000 members, thank you for the opportunity to submit this written testimony in support of 

S. 364, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. I also want to express my deep 

gratitude to Senator Baucus for sponsoring the Heritage Act. For the record, the 

Montana Wilderness Association strongly and enthusiastically supports the Heritage Act. 

About the Montana Wilderness Association 

The mission of the Montana Wilderness Association is to protect Montana’s wilderness heritage, quiet beauty, and outdoor traditions, now and for future generations. Founded 53 years ago by Montana hunters, conservationists and small business owners, The Montana Wilderness Association was established to prevent further loss of Montana’s wilderness heritage. Our founders were instrumental in the 

passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the Montana Wilderness Association 

subsequently led the fight to win designation for virtually every wilderness area in 

the state, including the Scapegoat, Absaroka-Beartooth, Rattlesnake, Lee Metcalf, 

Great Bear, and Welcome Creek, as well as Wild and Scenic designations for the 

Flathead and Missouri rivers. 

Our members view Montana’s remaining wild country as a public trust that 

should be managed so Montanans will always have access to great hunting, fishing, 

camping under the stars, and quiet mountain trails. 

60 

The Rocky Mountain Front 

Known as the place in Montana where the Great Plains meet the Rocky Mountains and where grizzly bears still venture out onto their native prairie habitat, the 

Rocky Mountain Front is a wild and rugged land that provides clean water for nearby communities and habitat for prized big game animals such as elk and bighorn 

sheep. By providing some of the highest quality backcountry experiences and opportunities for solitude, the Rocky Mountain Front supports a way of life for many 

Montanans. Whether it be hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or just watching wildlife, the Rocky Mountain Front holds the essence of that what defines Montana. To 

put it simply, Montana would not be Montana without the Rocky Mountain Front. 

The backcountry recreation opportunities provided by the Rocky Mountain Front 

also have a significant economic impact on local communities. According to data collected by Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks over the past five years, sportsmen have 

been spending $10 million each year as they hunt along the Rocky Mountain Front. 

It is the local hotels, restaurants, taverns, grocery stores, and gas stations that feel 

the benefits of this $10 million pulse of economic activity. Protecting the Rocky 

Mountain Front so backcountry recreation opportunities remain tomorrow as they 

do today will ensure the economic impact of the Rocky Mountain Front is sustained 

and local communities benefit well into the future. Protecting the Rocky Mountain 

Front will maintain a lifestyle and quality of life that attracts people to Montana’s 

communities to establish new businesses and raise families as well as contribute to 

the current and future economic. 

The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act 

Often referred to as a ‘‘made in Montana’’ solution, the Heritage Act is the result 

of a five-year effort aimed at protecting the wild backcountry of the Rocky Mountain 

Front while ensuring livestock grazing opportunities and maintaining access for 

hunting, fishing, horseback riding, hiking, and camping. This effort required eight 

public meetings, countless kitchen table discussions, and small group meetings with 

local permittees, elected officials, and landowners. This locally driven collaborative 

effort resulted in many substantive changes being made to the Heritage Act. These 

changes to the Heritage Act ensure there is a place for a variety of uses and activities on the Rocky Mountain Front while still protecting the wild backcountry that 

makes the Front such a special place for both people and wildlife. 

The Heritage Act protects a substantial portion for the Rocky Mountain Front by 

designating approximately 67,112 acres of Lewis and Clark National Forest as additions to the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness areas. In addition, the Heritage 

Act designates 208,160 acres of Lewis and Clark National Forest and Bureau of 

Land Management lands as a Conservation Management Area. In this Conservation 

Management Area, The Heritage Act limits the construction of new roads while ensuring the public use of current motorized routes, which provide public access for 

hunting, fishing, biking, and grazing. These routes are also used to achieve vegetation management objectives such as thinning, post and pole, and firewood gathering. 

The Heritage Act also prioritizes the eradication and prevention of noxious weeds 

on approximately 405,272 acres of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands along the Rocky Mountain Front. Prioritizing noxious weed eradication 

and prevention on public lands along the Rocky Mountain Front will help to protect 

adjacent private ranchlands and ensure important wildlife habitats remain intact. 

Through the designation of wilderness additions to the Bob Marshall and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas, the designation of a Conservation Management Area on U.S. 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands, and the prioritizing of the 

eradication and prevention of noxious weeds, the Heritage Act will maintain the 

wild backcountry and wildlife habitats that make the Rocky Mountain Front such 

a wild and special place to Montanans. 

Conclusion 

The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is a shining example of how Montanans 

can put their differences aside and work together to preserve our state’s wild 

backcountry while meeting the needs of local communities. The Montana Wilderness 

Association strongly and enthusiastically supports S. 364, the Rocky Mountain 

Front Heritage Act, and the permanent protections it provides. We urge the Committee to approve the bill and send it to the floor for consideration by the Senate. 

Sincerely, 

61 

STATEMENT OF MARTIN NIE, PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF FORESTRY AND CONSERVATION, UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, ON S. 1470 

I was asked by Senator Tester to provide written testimony on S. 1470. I want 

to thank the Senator, and the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, for the 

opportunity to do so. I am a professor of natural resource policy in the College of 

Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana. The following testimony 

draws from my research on the problems and opportunities presented by ‘‘placebased’’ National Forest law. I write to neither support or oppose the Forest Jobs and 

Recreation Act (FJRA) as currently written. Instead, I ask a number of questions 

that deserve serious consideration by the Committee. 

There is increasing interest in ‘‘place-based,’’ or national forest-specific legislation. 

In several places divergent interests are negotiating how they would like particular 

forests to be managed. These proposals often include provisions related to wilderness designation, economic development, forest restoration, and funding mechanisms, among others. But unlike more typical collaborative efforts, some groups are 

interested in possibly codifying the resulting agreements. 

While S. 1470 has garnered national interest, there are place-based initiatives 

happening on other National Forests, including the Lewis and Clark, Colville, Clearwater and Nez Perce, Fremont-Winema, Tongass, and federal forests in Arizona, 

among others. Each initiative is different in significant ways. But all are searching 

for more durable, bottom-up, and pro-active solutions to National Forest management. Some negotiations, like that on Idaho’s Clearwater and Nez Perce, may result 

in proposed legislation. But others, including arrangements on the Colville and Fremont-Winema, are not based on forest specific laws but instead operate through formalized agreements and protocols with the U.S. Forest Service. This bigger picture 

is important and I hope the Committee considers the possible impact of S.1470 on 

these other initiatives. 

S. 1470 is a bold and constructive response to a dysfunctional status quo. It advances the debate over National Forest management in significant ways, by forcing 

us to address several intractable system-wide problems. Nonetheless, the legislated 

approach to National Forest management is a significant departure from the status 

quo and it raises several significant questions. Laid out below are some of the most 

important. They go beyond S. 1470, with the assumption that if enacted, similar 

place-based forest laws are forthcoming. 

1. Would a proliferation of place-based forest laws disunify the relatively consistent mission and mandate of the USFS? 

If replicated more broadly, the place-based approach to forest management could 

further disaggregate the National Forest system. Law-by-law, the National Forests 

could be governed by forest-specific mandates, not unlike the unit-specific enabling 

laws governing the National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges. A relatively consistent mission and mandate applicable to the National Forests would be replaced 

by more site-specific prescriptive laws detailing how particular forests must be managed. This might be good for some forests, but what effect would it have on the National Forest System? 

2. Will the FJRA conflict with preexisting Forest Service mandates, environmental laws, and planning requirements? 

Forest-specific laws already codified, like the Tongass Timber Reform Act and the 

Herger-Feinstein (Quincy Library) Act, have engendered more conflict than consensus partly because of how these laws sometimes fail to fit into the preexisting 

legal and planning framework. In these and other cases the USFS is forced to walk 

a statutory minefield with legal grenades thrown from all directions. One way or 

another, the agency gets sued for either complying with existing environmental laws 

or for ostensibly subordinating the new place-based one. These cases show that the 

answer to forest management might not be another law placed on top of myriad others but rather an untangling or clarification of the existing legal framework. 

NEPA is one big unanswered question in S. 1470. The bill requires the USFS to 

satisfy its NEPA duties within one year. But without additional support it is hard 

to fathom the agency meeting this deadline, given that it takes the USFS about 

three years to complete an EIS. When it comes to meeting NEPA obligations, the 

USFS needs more funding, leadership, and institutional support, not more law. 

3. Can the FJRA be successfully implemented and how will it be paid for? 

One purpose of S. 1470 is to generate a more predictable flow of wood products 

for local mills, thus the bill’s timber harvest mandate. The probability of achieving 

community stability through forest management has been debated ad nauseum. 

Alas, most agree that there are simply too many uncontrollable impediments to 

achieving this objective, like fluctuating housing starts, cheap Canadian imports, 

62 

vacillating court decisions, swings in agency budgets, and so on. Nonetheless, S. 

1470 is to be admired for its focus on sustainable forests and communities, and for 

understanding the benefits of having a functional timber industry in Montana. 

Before proceeding with a controversial legislated harvest mandate, lawmakers 

should consider some alternative ways to achieve greater predictability. This includes an innovative effort on the Colville National Forest to provide a steadier, sustainable, and less contested stream of timber for local mills, with accompanying restoration objectives. In this case, a collaborative group works with the agency to 

achieve its objectives via formalized agreement and a mutually agreed upon decision 

making protocol. 

S. 1470 would be primarily implemented and paid for by using stewardship contracting. This tool’s popularity stems partially from the highly uncertain congressional appropriations process, a process that chronically underfunds the USFS and 

its non-fire related responsibilities and needed restoration work. But on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, there are serious questions as to whether there is 

enough economic value in this lodgepole pine-dominant forest to pay for the restoration work. As a safety valve, S. 1470 authorizes spending additional money to meet 

its purposes, but there is no guarantee that such funds will be appropriated, or if 

so, they would not come from another part of the agency’s budget. 

The question, then, is what happens if such envisioned funds don’t materialize? 

Will money be siphoned from other National Forests in order to satisfy the mandates of S. 1470? Consider, for example, the White Mountain stewardship project 

in Arizona. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that this project incurred greater costs than expected and such costs have ‘‘taken a substantial toll on 

the forest’s other programs.’’ Furthermore, some other fuel reduction projects were 

not completed because their funding sources were being ‘‘monopolized’’ by the White 

Mountain project. Other National Forests in the region also paid a price to service 

the terms of this contract, and ‘‘[a]s the region has redirected funds toward the 

White Mountain project, these other forests have become resentful of the disproportionate amount of funding the project has received.’’ 

Several other budget related questions are raised by the possible replication of 

place-based forest laws. For example, might the approach move the National Forests 

closer to a National Park Service model, where congressional delegations exercise 

increased control over a unit via Committee and purse strings? Will senior congressional delegations be more successful in securing funding for place-based laws in 

their states? Will it create a system of ‘‘haves’’ and ‘‘have nots’’ in the National Forest system? And perhaps most important, would these budgetary situations benefit 

the National Forest system as-a-whole? 

4. What precedent will be set if the RJVA is enacted? 

There is a remarkable amount of interest in S. 1470. This is partly because of 

the precedent the bill would set by legislating management of particular National 

Forests, including a legislated timber supply requirement. The place-based initiatives referenced above could be impacted by S. 1470. If the bill passes in its current 

form, more groups will seek place-based forest laws in the future, and some of those 

proposals would undoubtedly contain some type of a legislated timber supply mandate. Thus, the FJRA has national implications, and for this reason it should be 

scrutinized carefully. 

Congress has a history of deferring to state congressional delegations in wilderness politics. So, for example, if one delegation defers to Montana’s in passing 

S.1470, Montana’s delegation will be asked to play by the same rules when a different wilderness bill is being considered. And recent history shows that those proposals may not be carefully crafted or in the national interest. Potential for abuse 

is even more acute if individual forest bills contain special privileges and exemptions that are not available elsewhere. In this regard, subsequent efforts in codifying 

place-based agreements could have a dangerous snowball effect. 

Also legitimate is the fear that if passed, S. 1470 creates a precedent and possible 

expectation that future wilderness bills must be packaged with economic development provisions (among other nonconforming uses within wilderness areas) if they 

are to be politically feasible. And special provisions are often replicated in wilderness law. Once used, provisions related to such matters as water rights and buffer 

areas are regularly stamped onto future wilderness bills as a matter of course. 

To be sure, compromise is inherent in the Wilderness Act, and all sorts of special 

exemptions and political deals are written into wilderness laws with some regularity. But trading wilderness for a timber harvest mandate is a different beast altogether. The real question here is not whether it is reasonable to require two National Forests to mechanically treat 100,000 acres over the next ten years; but rathVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
63 

er what those numbers will look like in other states if all of a sudden harvest mandates are politically palatable. 

5. Why not experiment in more serious fashion? 

S. 1470 includes a vague reference to ‘‘adaptive management,’’ and thus an implicit acknowledgement that there are uncertainties inherent in the bill. In this 

vein, the bill sets up a monitoring program whereby the USFS will report to Congress on the progress made in (1) meeting the bill’s timber supply mandate, (2) the 

cost-effectiveness of the restoration projects, and (3) whether or not the legislation 

has reduced conflict as measured by administrative appeals and litigation. Not included on the list are specific ecological (non-timber related) monitoring requirements. 

This is a good start. But given the importance of S. 1470, and the impact it could 

have on other place-based proposals, why not approach matters in a more deliberately experimental fashion? This could be accomplished in different ways but the 

principles would be the same: proceed cautiously, try different approaches in different places, carefully monitor the results, and go from there. These experiments 

could be housed within a more structured experimental framework, with appropriate legal sideboards and oversight, such as that provided by the recently enacted 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Such a legislatively-created 

framework is one way of ensuring that future place-based proposals do not become 

used as a backdoor way of undermining environmental law and devolving federal 

lands to self-selected stakeholders. 

If such a framework is not used, I recommend making the purpose of experimentation more central to S. 1470. This could be done by strengthening the bill’s monitoring and evaluation requirements, to include other ecological and policy/process 

considerations. Ecological monitoring requirements should be mandated. 

Changes should also be made to S.1470 to ensure that its ecological restoration 

goals are achieved in tandem with its harvest mandate. I propose a reciprocal or 

staged stewardship contracting approach whereby future timber projects cannot proceed until certain restoration objectives are met; and once met, future timber is released in a sort of tit-for-tat sequence. This approach will alleviate widespread concerns that restoration will take a back seat to the bill’s more clearly articulated timber supply mandate. 

Another possibility is to carve out some space in the bill to experiment with different ways of improving the forest planning and NEPA process. Why not try different approaches to its implementation and learn lessons from that experience? In 

doing so, S.1470 could teach valuable lessons that might be tried elsewhere, and the 

USFS could be brought into the process as partners, rather than subjects. 

With a more deliberately experimental design, S. 1470 could inform a larger system-wide look at National Forest law and management. All sorts of ways in which 

to reform National Forest management have been proposed in the past, and most 

of those proposals focus on systemic measures imposed on all forests from the topdown. Rarer are proposals seeking to learn lessons from the bottom-up, and S. 1470 

offers such an opportunity. So do the other place-based initiatives referenced above. 

All of these efforts are admirable in their goals to secure broader-based solutions 

and conservation strategies. It is my hope that lawmakers and others carefully 

study these place-based initiatives as part of a more structured and comprehensive 

review of National Forest law and management. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. CASSIDY JR., VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT

RELATIONS AND POLICY, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

On behalf of our 700,000 members and supporters we respectfully urge the Committee to support S.404, the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act. The 

legislation is necessary to keep a historically significant fire lookout in the Glacier 

Peak Wilderness Area of Washington state in light of a court ordering that it be 

removed at taxpayer expense. 

The Green Mountain Lookout was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 

1933 at the top of Green Mountain in the North Cascade mountains of Washington 

state. It served as an integral part of the region’s fire detection system until the 

mid-1980s and as a U.S. Army aircraft warning site during World War II. Today, 

it is managed by the U.S. Forest Service as an asset of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest. In 1984 the Green Mountain Lookout was incorporated within the 

boundaries of the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. The structure was listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places in 1987 and has been rehabilitated in recent 

years by the Forest Service with the diligent help of local volunteers and a $50,000 

federal grant from the Save America’s Treasures Program. 

64 

Subsequently, the Forest Service utilized federal funds as well as thousands of 

hours of volunteer labor in efforts to stabilize the Lookout. After the work was completed, however, the agency was sued for the purported impositions to wilderness 

values that occurred in the course of its work to preserve the historic structure. Last 

year, a federal court ordered the Forest Service to devise a plan to address what 

it found to be illegal repairs to the structure. On May 2, 2013 the agency published 

a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement that only analyzes options that will remove the lookout from its historic location. Thus, if the 

lookout is to be saved, Congress must act. 

Prompt action on this bill will ensure the continued operation and maintenance 

of the Green Mountain Lookout in the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area; without action, the lookout will be removed or destroyed, and a local wilderness treasure will 

be lost. S. 404, the Green Mountain Lookout Heritage Protection Act, is necessary 

not only to save an important piece of national history, but to save taxpayers the 

estimated $100,000 expense of moving the lookout to a location outside of the wilderness. 

We look forward to assisting you in any way on this issue. 

THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FRONT HERITAGE ACT, 

August 2, 2013. 

Hon. JOE MANCHIN, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR MANCHIN: 

On behalf of Montana’s hunters, anglers, outfitters, and the businesses that rely 

on the hunting and fishing industry, we thank you for your keen interest in the 

Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act (S.364). Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front (the 

‘‘Front’’) is a world-class destination for hunting and fishing in a natural setting of 

unparalleled splendor. Flanking the public wildlands are large working ranches and 

family farms along with guest ranches; many of these properties have been passed 

down from generation to generation. 

The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is broadly supported by hunters and anglers in the state. In fact, the total number of ‘hook and bullet’ clubs, hunting 

guides, outdoor businesses and wildlife managers who support the Heritage Act 

makes up the largest category of endorsers. Together they represent thousands of 

Montanans who live, work, hunt/fish and recreate along the Rocky Mountain Front. 

These stakeholders emphatically support the RMFHA for the following reasons: 

The Heritage Act was Developed with Hunter and Angler Input 

The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is a homegrown, collaborative 

solution to keep the area like it is for future generations by ensuring adequate access for both motorized and non-motorized users and conserving 

backcountry lands. Hunters and anglers have been directly involved in developing the bill. 

In fact, a recent letter from the Great Falls Chapter of Safari Club International sums it up: 

‘‘We commend the collaborative efforts of the Coalition to Protect the 

Rocky Mountain Front, bringing diverse interests to the table, to discuss future management of our local area. This is a true local ‘grassroots’ project. 

The Great Falls Chapter of Safari Club International offers our continued 

support to projects and strategies that maintain and enhance fisheries and 

wildlife populations and their habitats, while continuing our hunting, fishing and recreating heritage in Montana.’’ (Letter on file, April 2013) 

Wilderness Lands Provide Valuable Hunting and Fishing Opportunities. 

Hunting and fishing is permitted in wilderness areas and the Heritage Act 

does not affect state jurisdiction over fish and wildlife. As savvy hunters 

and anglers know, wilderness areas protect important wildlife habitat, and 

provide some of the country’s best opportunities for hunting and fishing. 

Further, because wilderness areas contain high-quality habitat, there is 

much less need for habitat restoration in wilderness. Although habitat restoration activities are permissible within wilderness, consistent with the 

Wilderness Act, these areas are much lower priority for restoration than 

other, more degraded, public land habitats. 

Big Game Needs Secure Habitat 

65 

First and foremost, the Front is a sportsmen’s’ paradise; the landscape 

provides hunters and anglers the best that Montana has to offer in terms 

of wildlife habitat and hunting and angling opportunities. The RMFHA’s 

designations of Wilderness and Conservation Management Area along with 

the emphasis on habitat protection through noxious weed control and eradication are complimentary components of the bill. Together, these provisions 

provide hunters and anglers a comprehensive ‘‘insurance policy’’ that will 

help maintain healthy, huntable wildlife and fish populations. There is a 

reason Montana has one of the longest and most liberal big game hunting 

seasons in the nation and habitat protection provided by the Heritage Act 

is key to protecting Montana’s hunting and fishing heritage and keeping 

local economies in the region strong. 

Economic Contribution of Hunting on the Front: 

There are very few places left in the world where a hunter can go after 

10 big game species—the Rocky Mountain Front is one of them. All this 

hunting opportunity adds up to a lot more than full freezers and life-long 

memories, it also adds significantly to local economies; to the tune of $10 

million that sportsmen and women spent on hunting trips to the Front in 

2010. 

Along the Rocky Mountain Front, expenditures by hunters and anglers 

have held steady through the most recent recession, making these popular 

outdoor pursuits a rare bright spot when compared to the struggles of the 

broader economy. 

According to Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP) data, hunter 

expenditures along the Front, over a five year period from 2006 to 2010, 

have held steady despite the broader economic challenges facing other industries during the recent recession. 

In real terms, during 2006, at the peak of the last business cycle, sportsmen hunting along the Front spent $9.8 million; growing to $10.4 million 

in 2008 in the middle of the recession; and falling only slightly in 2010 to 

$10.1 million. 

These impressive numbers show that the high quality of the hunting resources on the Rocky Mountain Front is known not only to local residents 

but also to hunters from across the region and the country. In 2010 alone, 

MTFWP measured more than 90,000 hunter days on its districts along the 

Front. 

According to MTFWP most hunters visit the Front for upland game birds, 

deer, and elk while a smaller number of sportsmen hunted antelope, big 

horn sheep, moose, and mountain goats. In 2010, sportsmen hunting upland 

game birds spent more than $4 million and those hunting deer and elk 

spent more than $5 million. 

Senator Manchin, support for the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act is strong 

in Montana because the bill will ensure that the Front that Montanan’s cherish will 

stay like it is today for future sportsmen and women of Montana and the nation. 

Again, we thank you for your willingness to hear from hunters and anglers 

throughout Montana about the Rocky Mountain Front Act and we look forward to 

working with you to ensure the passage of this worthy bill. Please contact me should 

you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

STATEMENT OF STEVE MOYER, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, TROUT

UNLIMITED, ARLINGTON, VA, ON S. 37 

On behalf of Trout Unlimited (TU) and its 145,000 members, I write in support 

of S. 37, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and S. 364, the Rocky Mountain Front 

Heritage Act, and thank you for scheduling a hearing to consider these bills. S. 37 

will permanently protect nearly one million acres of Montana’s spectacular 

backcountry and establish 670,000 acres of Wilderness, the first new Wilderness 

designations in Montana in over twenty-five years. The management projects 

spurred by this bill will focus on restoration of degraded forest lands and reduction 

of overall road density and the legislation strives to protect the integrity of roadless 

areas while complying with all existing laws, policies, regulations, and forest plans. 

Further, projects enabled by S. 37 will create jobs in forest restoration, provide fiber 

66 

for our timber partners in local mills, and benefit Montana communities by reducing 

hazardous fuels in the wildland-urban interface. 

More than 2,000 TU members live and work in communities around the national 

forest and BLM areas affected by S. 37, including Butte, Anaconda, Deer Lodge, 

Sheridan, Twin Bridges, Silver Star, Philipsburg, West Yellowstone, Cameron, Dillon, Ennis, Bozeman, Missoula, Drummond, Ovando, Bonner, Whitehall, Libby and 

Troy. Most members in these areas are long-time or native Montanans and they 

fish, hunt, hike, camp, drive, snowmobile, ski, ride horses, and collect firewood, berries and Christmas trees from these lands. A number have livelihoods directly tied 

to these lands, working as guides and outfitters, loggers, ranch hands, staffers in 

natural resource agencies or operators of small businesses. 

More than seven years ago, spurred by the recognition that National Forests in 

western Montana were not living up to their potential to support healthy fish and 

wildlife and provide jobs and recreational opportunities for local communities, TU 

and other local stakeholders came together to develop a shared vision for forest 

management. The resulting compromises provided the basis for an important part 

of S. 37, which would protect fish and wildlife habitat through the designation of 

670,000 acres of new Wilderness and more than 300,000 acres of special management and national recreation areas, restore degraded habitat through the removal 

of old roads and blocked culverts, reduce the risk of wildfire through targeted fuel 

reduction projects, and create jobs for local communities through stewardship contracting. If implemented, the bill could yield significant benefits to fish and wildlife, 

water resources, and nearby communities. 

TU has a long record of working with farmers, ranchers, industries, and government agencies to protect and restore trout and salmon watersheds nationwide. 

Drawing on these cooperative experiences, we have worked to develop the solutions 

contained in S. 37 with a diverse group of stakeholders in Montana. Bruce Farling, 

Montana TU’s Executive Director, has led TU’s efforts on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

and TU volunteer Tim Linehan has been a leader in the Kootenai initiative. The 

partners in the region have done courageous, outstanding work. TU strongly supports S. 37, we deeply appreciate the work of Senator Tester and his staff for introducing it, and we urge the Senate to support it. 

Background on the Development of S. 37 

In an August 14, 2009 speech in Seattle, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that Americans must move away from polarization and ‘‘.work towards a shared 

vision-a vision that conserves our forests and the vital resources important to our 

survival while wisely respecting the need for a forest economy that creates jobs and 

vibrant rural communities.’’ Through a collaborative grassroots effort dating back 

several years, a broad range of partners has done just that, and the resulting vision 

has provided the basis for the legislation introduced by Senator Tester. 

Prior to this collaborative process the forests were mired in stalemate that failed 

to protect and restore fish and wildlife. Wilderness has not been designated in the 

state of Montana in over 25 years, despite the broad recognition of the need to protect quality fish and wildlife habitat and public support to do so. There are hundreds of impassible culverts on the forests that fragment trout habitat. Dense networks of obsolete roads restrict elk security and movement, and contribute heavy 

loads of sediment to streams. 

Due in part to these impacts, native salmonids, some of which are listed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act, occupy but a small fraction 

of their historic range. Decades of fire suppression has produced homogenous evenaged stands of forests, which along with climate change and the pine bark beetle 

infestation increase the risk of unnaturally intense fire. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will enable the Forest Service to address these long-neglected needs. 

The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act results from three grassroots efforts in which 

TU in Montana was a principal in two efforts (Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Three 

Rivers) and a supporter in the third (Blackfoot-Clearwater). The bill is Montanamade, and it has generated unprecedented consensus among many Montanans of 

different stripes that validates the notion that collaboration is vital to developing 

long-term popular support of public lands management. 

The Fish and Wildlife Benefits of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act 

Now more than ever, as changes in climate increase the challenges faced by forest 

managers and ecosystems, it is imperative that national forests are managed in 

ways that promote resiliency. By federally protecting the highest quality landscapes 

and then reconnecting them to adjacent areas through watershed restoration, S. 37 

will help to maintain abundant fish and wildlife populations while providing mulVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
67 

tiple benefits to human communities through good paying jobs. This can be done 

through the following actions: 

1. Protect the highest quality lands and waters. 

The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would protect as federal Wilderness 670,000 

acres of undeveloped country in 25 areas, as well as create over 300,000 acres of 

special management and national recreation areas. By doing so, it will protect crucial sources of clean, cold water as well as essential habitats for wild and native 

trout in the headwaters of some of the nation’s most storied trout waters, including 

Rock Creek and the Madison, Beaverhead, Ruby, Jefferson, Big Blackfoot, Clark 

Fork and Kootenai rivers. Protection of Wilderness and special management areas 

in the bill will also help secure habitats for Canada lynx, a listed species, as well 

as wolverines and mountain goats—all species that need undisturbed habitats. Finally, it will provide secure habitat in Montana’s greatest elk hunting region. 

The protection of high quality habitat, along with the reconnection and restoration 

projects described below, will help secure populations of one ESA listed fish species, 

bull trout, and three additional fish species that are candidates for listing: westslope 

cutthroat trout, arctic grayling, and interior redband trout. All of these species now 

inhabit only a small portion of their historical ranges on the lands in the bill. The 

Wilderness and special area designations serve as critical sources for fish that are 

necessary for re-populating restored habitats downstream. 

2. Reconnect landscapes so that fish and wildlife can survive habitat disturb- ances. 

Restoration projects will be focused on areas of high road density. Obsolete road 

networks in Montana forests cause habitat fragmentation that prevents fish from 

dispersing to intact habitats when faced with disturbances such as fire, drought or 

intense storms. The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would address the problems 

caused by these road networks by (1) prohibiting the construction of new, permanent roads; and (2) requiring that road densities be reduced. (For example, in the 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, the road standard is to leave post-project 

landscapes with a road density that averages no more than 1.5 linear road mile per 

square-mile.) The scientifically based standard recommended by the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks for elk security is no more than 1.5 linear 

miles of road per square-mile, which is the minimum needed to provide enough security for elk so that Montana can maintain its best-in-the-nation 5-week general 

big game hunting season. The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and the Seeley 

Lake Ranger District include some of the most productive lands anywhere in Montana for large, trophy elk. The road standards in S. 37 will also protect high quality 

habitat and improve wildlife security for a host of popular game and non-game species, including mule deer, black and grizzly bears and mountain goats. 

The road standards will also greatly benefit fish by reducing erosion-prone road 

surfaces and road crossing structures such as culverts that are currently harming 

habitat and impeding movement of fish into and out of important habitats. Recent 

agency surveys indicate, for example, that at least 240 road culverts on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest are currently complete or partial barriers to fish 

movement, and the frequency of road crossing barriers on the Seeley Lake and 

Three Rivers Districts are even more severe. The result is reduced habitat availability for species such as bull trout and cutthroat trout. The restoration projects 

enabled by this legislation will improve habitat connectivity by removing roads and 

replacing or removing blocked culverts. 

3. Engage communities in restoration. 

The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act directs the Forest Service to use stewardship 

contracting to meet vegetation management goals, which ensures that the value of 

trees removed is invested back onto the same landscape in habitat restoration, 

elimination of pollution sources, protection of key habitats from livestock, or suppression of weeds on winter ranges, as well as improvement of recreational features 

such as trails used by hunters, anglers and other recreationists. 

By focusing stewardship projects on previously developed landscapes with high 

densities of roads, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act will help address impairments on landscapes that are prone to unnatural rates of erosion, and related effects 

such as exotic weed invasion, after fires. When large fires sweep through developed 

landscapes such as those on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest or the Three 

Rivers Ranger District, they significantly increase the risk of erosion from road systems after snowmelt or severe rainstorms, and subsequent colonization by exotic 

weeds. Similarly, post-fire storms can block road culverts with debris and mud, 

causing these structures to fail and resulting in channel scouring and large amounts 

of sediment entering into trout streams. Fire is a natural part of these forest sysVerDate Nov 24 2008 17:44 Feb 04, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 G:\DOCS\82863.TXT WANDA
68 

tems. In fact, on undeveloped landscapes it can play a beneficial role, one that fish 

and wildlife have adapted to for eons. On densely roaded forests, the effects of fire 

can cause intense erosion, water quality degradation, and extirpation of local populations of fish and wildlife-not to mention the risk to drinking water sources of nearby human communities. 

TU Supports S. 364, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act 

The Rocky Mountain Front is one of the most diverse and wildlife-rich landscapes 

in the lower forty-eight, drawing hunters, anglers and recreationists from throughout the West, including many TU members. Outdoor recreation supported by public 

lands on the Rocky Mountain Front is a significant economic engine, with hunting 

trips alone contributing over $10 million to local communities in 2010. 

As with the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage 

Act is a homegrown, collaborative solution for conflicts in public land management. 

S. 364 will ensure adequate access for both motorized and non-motorized users, conserve backcountry lands through the designation of 67,000 acres of Wilderness, establish 208,000 acres as Conservation Management Areas, and address the evergrowing issue of noxious weeds that put both wildlife and ranches at risk. TU supports provisions in S.364 that will help to keep the Rocky Mountain Front like it 

is for future generations and we urge the Senate to pass the bill. 

Conclusion 

The collaborative effort undertaken by local Montana groups is on the verge of 

overcoming years of controversy and delay to protect and restore Montana forests 

in ways that benefit fish and wildlife resources and local communities. There are 

challenges ahead, but S. 37 represents a new way of doing business for the Forest 

Service, and we urge the committee to pass it. 

TU supports S. 37 and S. 364, and urges the Committee to approve the bills and 

to send them on to the floor for consideration by the Senate. 

Sincerely, 

Æ