U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

62–627 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–744 

PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

S. 1241 S. 3185 

S. 1571 H.R. 86 

S. 2762 H.R. 1043 

S. 3075 

APRIL 28, 2010 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JEFF BINGAMAN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator From Montana .................................................. 2 

Burke, Marcilynn A., Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 12 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator From Oklahoma ........................................ 8 

Krueger, Faye, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Forest Service, Department 

of Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 18 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana ..................................................... 5 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon ...................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 31 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 47 

(1) 

PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS BILLS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2010 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding. 

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

FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Subcommittee will come to order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive testimony on several 

bills pending before the subcommittee. These include S. 1241, a bill 

to amend Public Law 106–206 to direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual 

fees for commercial filming on Federal land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer; S. 1571 and H.R. 1043; S. 2762, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act; S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act; and S. 3185; and H.R. 86, a bill to eliminate an unused 

lighthouse reservation, incorporate the rocks and small islands 

along the coast of Orange County, California, into the California 

Coastal National Monument, and for other purposes. 

None of my colleagues are present at this time. We have 3 very 

active members of the Senate on these natural resources issues. Always glad to have Chairman Baucus here—Senator Tester, Senator 

Inhofe. Why don’t we begin with you, Chairman Baucus. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

CALIFORNIA, ON S. 1571 

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Chairman Wyden, for holding a hearing on the ‘‘Deafy Glade Land 

Exchange Act.’’ This legislation would authorize a land exchange between the 

United States Forest Service and Solano County that would add wilderness-quality 

land to the Mendocino National Forest, and help ensure the continued operation of 

the Fouts Springs Youth Correctional Facility. 

Since 1987, Solano County has been working with the Forest Service to obtain 

ownership of the land beneath the correctional facility. It acquired wilderness-quality forest land to convey to the Forest Service in exchange for the land occupied by 

the Fouts Springs Youth Correctional Facility. In 1992, the Deafy Glade area was 

deemed by the Forest Service a ‘‘priority area for acquisition.’’ The County therefore 

acquired land located within Deafy Glade to exchange with the Forest Service for 

Fouts Springs. The County’s Deafy Glade land is comprised of 4 parcels totaling 

162-acres, and it borders the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area. This legislation 

would facilitate the land exchange between the County and the Forest Service so 
2 

that the County could own the land beneath the youth facility it operates, and in 

exchange, the Forest Service would acquire a wilderness-quality inholding. 

BACKGROUND

Solano County operates a youth correctional facility under a Special Use Permit 

issued by the Forest Service on the Fouts Springs Ranch, which covers approximately 82 acres within the boundaries of the Mendocino National Forest. The County owns the infrastructure but leases the land from the Forest Service. 

Solano County has operated the Fouts Springs Youth Facility pursuant to a joint 

powers agreement with Yolo and Colusa counties since 1959. Fouts Springs takes 

juveniles out of environments that lack positivity and structure and places them 

into a regimented and supportive environment. Its programs include counseling and 

education, with the goal of giving juveniles the skills to successfully reenter their 

communities. 

More than 20 California counties have placed juvenile offenders at Fouts Springs 

for six month, nine month, and twelve month periods. The program is viewed as a 

last resort for youth before being referred to a state prison. 

WHAT THE LEGISLATION DOES

Specifically, the ‘‘Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act’’ would authorize: 

• The transfer of Fouts Springs Ranch—approximately 82 acres—from the Forest 

Service to Solano County; and • The transfer of 162 acres of the Deafy Glade area in Mendocino National Forest 

from Solano County to the Forest Service. 

The Fouts Spring youth correctional facility is in need of substantial upgrades, 

including the replacement of the main water line, electrical system improvements, 

and renovation of one of the dormitories. However, the County has postponed investing in facility upgrades until the land exchange is finalized and ownership of the 

Fouts Springs Ranch is transferred to the County. 

CONCLUSION

This legislation would not only help ensure the continued operation of the Fouts 

Spring youth correctional facility, but it would also add nearly 162 acres of wilderness quality land to the Mendocino National Forest. Given the substantial investment already made by Solano County, the importance of the youth rehabilitation 

services provided by Fouts Springs, the benefit to the public of acquiring the Deafy 

Glade in-holding, I thank you again for including the ‘‘Deafy Glade Land Exchange 

Act’’ in this hearing and look forward to working with you to enact it into law. 

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

FROM MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden. I deeply 

appreciate your holding this hearing. 

We want to—Senator Tester and I talked about something that’s 

very near and dear to us, something that we love most about Montana; that’s the North Fork, the Flathead River. You can see the 

photographs, here on either side of us, depicting the North Fork. 

Anyone who experiences the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, awed by the North Fork, its 

larger-than-life landscapes, its raw wilderness. 

With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork, or the 

Flathead River, forms the western boundary of the Glacier National Park. You might get a little sense of that with the photograph on your right. It is one of the last untouched places in our 

continent. North Fork, or the Flathead. 

But, for decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and 

gas and mining proposals at British Columbia. For the last 3 to 5 

years, I have battled these proposals, one by one, each time victorious, knock on wood. Now, after 35 years, we are beginning a 

new chapter of international cooperation in the North Fork. 
3 

In February of this year, British Columbia announced its intent 

to prevent mining and oil and gas and coalbed methane development in the Watershed. Let me just explain, if I can, Mr. Chairman. You can’t quite tell from this, but all the development of coalbed methane, or oil and gas, or even the coal mines themselves, are 

just across the Montana border, just north of the border, up into 

British Columbia. The economic benefit would primarily inure—in 

fact, entirely inure to British Columbia, to private enterprises, to 

the Province, et cetera. There are also some natural resource 

groups that really do use the North Fork Watershed up in British 

Columbia. 

Unfortunately, the water—because it flows south into Montana— 

and the air south of Montana, means that Montana would be the 

location that gets most of the environmental damage. So, if there’s 

mining up in British Columbia, and oil and gas leases in British 

Columbia, the pollution will then flow south into the Watershed 

into the Montana portion of North Fork, whereas, basically, economic benefits stays—stay north. That’s a—just a rough simplification of the issue. 

Senator Tester and I have pledged to do our part, however, to establish extra protections south of the border, where 90 percent of 

the North Fork Watershed is already federally owned. 

The boundaries of our bill track the boundaries of the North Fork 

Watershed. Half of the area is within the boundary of Glacier National Park, where resource extraction is already precluded. You 

can’t mine and extract resources at Glacier Park. 

There are some very old inactive leases, though, in the western 

half of the Watershed. On March 4, we introduced the North Fork 

Watershed Protection Act, S. 3075, which bans future mining, bans 

of all gas and coalbed methane development on Federal lands in 

the Watershed. The bill enjoys broad support from business and 

conservation interests alike, showing the importance of the North 

Fork for Montana’s economy, as well as our State’s outdoor heritage. 

Jon and I have been active—been in active discussions with current owners to retire these old leases, and I am pleased to announce a major success. Today, ConocoPhillips, the primary leaseholder to the North Fork Watershed, has elected to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 108 Federal oil and gas leases covering approximately 169,000 acres. That represents 71 percent of the leased 

area in the North Fork Watershed. ConocoPhillips should be commended, commended for their decision and their stewardship of 

this very unique special place. 

I want to take my hat off, Mr. Chairman, to ConocoPhillips. I 

also do, by the way, to the British—British Columbia. British Columbia has also taken their action to prevent future oil and gas 

mining developing in this part of the Province, as well. They’re 

doing their part; we in—our—as—our country are doing our part 

together, cooperating to do all we can to protect this Watershed. It 

is so, so important. 

Their action—the action by ConocoPhillips—is further evidence 

of the consensus that withdrawal of these Federal lands is the only 

path forward. 
4 

During 1975, during my first term in the House of Representatives, I introduced a bill to designate the Flathead River as a Wild 

and Scenic River. I might say, Mr. Chairman, I cut my teeth on 

them in jumping into the fray environmental issues with that legislation. My gosh, half—well, a lot of people in Montana want to protect their few—you know, very unique souls live up in North Fork, 

who were vehemently opposed to it. But, in the end, we got that 

legislation passed to—the boundary to protect the North Fork Flathead, as well the—and Scenic River designation. 

That, for me, began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. 

I can—well, it would literally take all afternoon, chapter and verse, 

all the efforts that we’ve undertaken to protect the North Fork, beginning with the appropriations, multiyear environmental baseline 

appropriations, when I was in the House, and lots of other things. 

But, this means so much to these people of Montana, and so much 

to me personally, that I probably devote as much time on this issue 

as any other in our State. 

Back then, 1975, we dug—found a quote—I said, back then, ‘‘A 

hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those who follow us will survey what we have left behind. Let us leave the Flathead as we found it. Let us prove that we care about those who 

will come after us.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we’ve proved it today. Together we can ensure 

that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who 

follows us—and I also want to compliment, again, our Canadian 

friends; it’s the partnership—will survey the North Fork and share 

our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA, 

ON S. 3075 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for having us here today 

to talk about one of the things that I love most about Montana—the North Fork 

of the Flathead River. Everyone who experiences the Flathead Valley in northwestern Montana is awed by its pristine waters, larger than life landscapes, and 

raw wilderness. With its headwaters in British Columbia, the North Fork of the 

Flathead River forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park—it is one of 

the last untouched places on our continent. 

For decades, the North Fork has been threatened by oil and gas and mining proposals in British Columbia. For the last 35 years, I have battled these proposals, 

one by one. After 35 years of work, we are beginning a new chapter of international 

cooperation in our efforts to protect the North Fork. 

In February of this year, British Columbia and Montana announced their intent 

to prevent mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development in the North Fork 

on the lands they control. This was a huge step forward, for which Governor 

Schweitzer and Premier Campbell should be commended. Jon and I pledged to do 

our part to establish extra protections south of the border, where 90% of the North 

Fork watershed is already Federally-owned. 

So, on March 4, we introduced the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, S. 3075, 

which bans future mining, oil and gas, and coalbed methane development on Federal lands in the watershed. The bill enjoys support from business and conservation 

interests alike from all over the state, including the Kalispell Chamber, Whitefish 

Mountain Resort, the Billings Rod and Gun Club, and a long list of others. This 

shows the importance of the North Fork for Montana’s economy as well as our 

state’s outdoor heritage. The boundaries of our bill track the boundaries of the 

North Fork watershed. Half of the area is within the boundary of Glacier National 

Park, where resource extraction is already precluded. There are some current leases 

in the western half of the watershed, outside of the park. However, those have been 
5 

dormant since the late 1980s, when a court decision found that they were improperly issued. 

Jon and I have been in active discussions with the current owners to retire these 

old leases. And, today, I am very pleased to announce success. 

Today, ConocoPhillips, the primary leaseholder in the North Fork watershed, has 

elected to voluntarily relinquish its interest in 108 federal oil and gas leases covering approximately 169,000 acres, representing 71% of the leased area in the North 

Fork watershed. 

Conoco Phillips should be commended for this decision and their stewardship of 

this very unique, special place. Their action is further evidence of the consensus 

that exists between the U.S. and Canada and among businesses and conservationists, that the withdrawal of these Federal lands from leasing is the only path forward. 

In 1975, during my first term in the House of Representatives, I introduced a bill 

to designate the Flathead River as a Wild and Scenic River. It was designated in 

1976. For me, that began a lifelong effort to protect the North Fork. At that time 

I said: ‘‘A hundred years from now, and perhaps much sooner, those who follow us 

will survey what we have left behind.’’ 

Today, we are one step closer to ensuring that that every Montanan, every American, and every Canadian who follows us will have the opportunity to share our feeling of awestruck wonder that such a place still exists, almost untouched by the modern world. 

Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Chairman Baucus. As usual, you’ve 

tackled a natural resources issue in a very disciplined way. You’ve 

obviously got broad support, and it seems to me, after more than 

3 decades of prosecuting the cause for the North Fork, you deserve 

to get a real victory on this. I’m going to do everything I can to win 

support for your bill. I commend you for your effort. These are 

treasured kinds of areas, and we’re going to do everything we can 

to pass your bill quickly, and—— 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if Senator Tester would like to say something, but this year—I think it’s 

this year—marks the—or maybe it’s next year, I forgotten which— 

the 100th anniversary of Glacier National Park at Waterton Park. 

It’s a great year to celebrate that centennial. We’re going to have 

quite a party, 100-year party there. Secretary Salazar will be there. 

I think—who else? Secretary—I don’t know if Secretary Clinton 

will be there. But, we’re doing—we’re—there’s going to be quite a 

show as we celebrate our 100th anniversary of Glacier National 

Park at North Fork. It’s just—it’s part of that same ecosystem. It’s 

right on the western border of Glacier Park, and it’s—so, the protection of North Fork is really a part of all this. 

Senator WYDEN. We westerners certainly treasure our celebrations over our protecting our lands. So, congratulations on getting 

it to this point, and we’re going to do everything to pass your 

bill—— 

Senator BAUCUS. I thank you. 

Senator WYDEN [continuing]. Quickly. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much. 

Senator WYDEN. To Senator Tester, my neighbor here in Washington, good work, and appreciate all your leadership on this. You 

make whatever remarks you choose, Senator. 

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

FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. I want thank you, Chairman Wyden. I appreciate this opportunity for holding this hearing today. 
6 

I’m very excited to support 2 bills, which I want to address today, 

if I might: the North Fork Protection Act, that Senator Baucus has 

talked about, and the Filming on Public Lands Act, both of which 

I’m a cosponsor of. Both of these bills enhance America’s ability to 

enjoy and conserve our public lands. 

First, I want to talk about S. 3075, the North Fork Protection 

Act. First of all, I would be remiss if I didn’t thank Senator Baucus 

for his leadership over the last 35 years on this issue; and actually 

longer than that. I very, very much appreciate his vision and his 

commonsense approach to the area. 

There’s just some places, Mr. Chairman, in this country that we 

shouldn’t develop, and one of those is on the west edge of Glacier 

National Park, the North Fork. It is a place that is very, very special and should be protected from future oil, gas, and mineral leasing. The North Fork of the Flathead is one of the farthable—farthest—‘‘farthable,’’ that’s a good one—farthest navigable reaches of 

the Columbia River Watershed, which provides clean water for 

Flathead Lake and downstream to Montana and the whole Pacific 

Northwest. The clear, blue water that starts in Canada today will 

end up supplying the cities and towns of Portland and Vancouver 

tomorrow. 

This area is an economic engine for the entire State of Montana. 

Over 2 million people visited Glacier last year alone, and spent an 

estimated 150 million in the Flathead Valley. Every year, close to 

a billion dollars is spent in Montana for people to hunt, fish, raft, 

hike, ride, ski, and visit our national parks. This bill is a part of 

a larger effort to work toward long-term international protection 

for the North Fork of the Flathead, one of North America’s last and 

best places. 

In February, the State of Montana and British Columbia signed 

an MOU signaling an end to a 30-year adversarial relationship on 

this issue. Now, British Columbia, acting as a good neighbor, is, as 

we speak, changing their land-use plan to prevent future resource 

development. I commend them on that. 

In March, Governor Schweitzer and the State of Montana Land 

Board committed to protect the 17,000 acres they own in North 

Fork, as well. Now it is our turn to solidify our commitment to 

these lands. The first step is the passing of this bill. Senator Baucus, as I mentioned before, has worked decades to protect this Watershed by stopping each new proposed mine, from coalbed methane to gold. Senator Baucus and I are now working on a proactive 

plan to protect this area, not just responding to a crisis. 

Part of this plan is working with current leaseholders to return 

their leases. As Senator Baucus said, British Columbia, too, is 

working as good stewards in this effort. The fact that there are just 

some places we shouldn’t develop is confirmed by Senator Baucus’s 

announcement earlier that ConocoPhillips is voluntarily returning 

169,000 acres of their suspended oil and gas leases to the Department of Interior. These leases make up 71 percent of the holdings 

in the North Fork. This is no small commitment. They recognize 

the area isn’t the place for drilling. I’m glad to say that 

ConocoPhillips is an energy partner that we want in the State of 

Montana, one who develops responsibly and recognizes the needs 
7 

of an area. I look forward to working positively with them to build 

our energy future. 

Along with leaseholders, we’re working with the Department of 

Interior, the USDA, and State Department to assure that this protection will last a lifetime. Last summer, Secretary Salazar stood 

on the shores of the Flathead River with Max and I, and committed 

to help to protect this area. Secretary Salazar, Senator Baucus, and 

I are not the only people who feel it is critically important landscape. From the Whitefish City Council to the National Wildlife 

Federation, all want to protect the land that provides clean water 

and clean air for our constituents. In fact, almost 50 groups support this bill to protect this Watershed for generations to come. 

Montanans are people who are inextricably tied to the land. It 

defines who we are and what we do, where we work, play, and 

teach our children the values we hold dear are all in the great outdoors. When I was a kid, Glacier Park was a magical place in the 

mountains, where the water was cool, clear, and plentiful, and you 

could hike for miles alone. Sharla and I used to take the kids hiking into Iceberg Lake in August and to see the shores of Lake MacDonald in September, and those are memories I treasure and hope 

I can experience with my grandkids. 

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, Chairman Wyden in particular, protecting the North Fork of the Flathead is about preserving large landscapes, providing clean water, and ensuring trout 

can spawn, but those are secondary to the experience that we preserve for future generations. It’s all about assuring our kids and 

grandkids to be able to get to catch a bull trout on the confluence 

of the North and Middle Fork, or when they hike the Highline 

Trail, they can look as far as the eye can see and experience the 

same pristine view that we have enjoyed in Glacier. This bill will 

ensure that that happens. The North Fork of the Flathead, Glacier 

Park, and a Crown of the Continent landscape is an iconic place 

that advance—defines peoples images of Montana and the West, 

and we should assure that that never changes. 

One last time before I turn it over to Senator Inhofe, who will 

speak on S. 1241, and then I’ll come back and follow up on his remarks, I want to thank Senator Max Baucus. Max has done a great 

job looking out for this region over many, many, many decades, and 

I certainly appreciate his leadership once again to step up the plate 

and do what’s right. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator Tester. Right before we go 

to Senator Inhofe, let me also say I especially appreciate your 

bringing up—and I know Chairman Baucus has strong views on 

this—that we, in the West, feel that these bills are also a true economic engine for our region. They pump millions and millions of 

dollars into Western communities as visitors come and you have 

guides and people are selling the equipment and jackets and the 

like. With this economy, I especially appreciate your making that 

last point then. 

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, if I might, that is so true. It is 

so true. In fact, this legislation and all our joint efforts, Jon’s and 

mine, to help protect the character of the North Fork and also Glacier Park, is strongly, strongly endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce, by all business groups. It’s a economic lifeblood. I’ve forgot-
8 

ten the exact number. I think it’s close to $2 billion in the Flathead—basin has spent. It’s Glacier and Flathead Basin which includes North Fork of the Flathead. It’s—people want to come and 

experience it, and we enjoy the dollars that they spend. 

Senator WYDEN. My thanks to both of you. An excellent case, and 

as I told Chairman Baucus, we’re going to try to move this bill as 

quickly as we can. 

Senator Tester, would you like to have Senator Inhofe testify, 

and then you want to come back to make some additional comments? 

Senator TESTER. I would. Yes, I think that would be entirely appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Chairman Baucus, did you want to be excused 

at this time? 

Senator BAUCUS. If I may. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you—— 

Senator WYDEN. All right. 

Senator BAUCUS [continuing]. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. We’re very glad to have Senator Inhofe with us. 

Just as an aside, I was just talking about Senator Inhofe a few 

minutes ago as we try once again to eliminate, finally, secret holds 

and bring some more transparency to government. Senator Inhofe 

and I have partnered on that, and many other things in the past. 

We always welcome Senator Inhofe before this subcommittee. 

Senator, just proceed as you’d like. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Chairman Wyden. 

I appreciate, also, the comments that were made by both of the 

previous witnesses on ConocoPhillips. They’ve made such great 

contributions, and I know they’re in the Tallgrass Prairie area in 

Oklahoma. They’re both from my area of Oklahoma, so I’m very 

proud for the contributions that they’ve made. I wasn’t aware of 

this up there, so it’s been helpful to me. 

Chairman Wyden, I do appreciate the opportunity to just present 

what we’re—a problem that can be corrected by S. 1241, which I 

have introduced with Senator Tester and with Senator Crapo. 

The House companion bill is H.R. 2031. It was introduced by my 

colleague in Oklahoma, Congressman Dan Boren, and he has some 

seven other bipartisan cosponsors. So, there’s nothing partisan 

about this. This is something that is just the right thing to do. The 

Congressional Sportsmen Caucus has designated S. 1241 as a priority for this Congress, and the legislation is supported by 33 

sportsman and conservation organizations, including the National 

Rifle Association. 

Very simply, this bill lessens the burdens on small commercial 

filming on public lands by authorizing a special permit to small 

film crews, defined in the bill as 5 persons or fewer, to simply pay 

a reasonable annual fee and be able to film on public lands. 

I think what’s been said already this—today, the—our public 

lands are just an incredible natural resource, and our professional 

outdoor media industry is a valuable way to bring the awareness 
9 

to our Nation’s resources through documentaries, sporting programs, and other productions. Small filming crews can be negatively affected by the current permitting in fee schedule, because 

wildlife filming is a very—very much affected by unpredictable factors requiring much patience and time. 

For example, Steve Scott—he’s from Norman, Oklahoma, he has 

a—one of these small operations. He’s an independent television 

producer, and he’s the former chairman of the Professional Outdoor 

Media Association. He probably best describes the work of the 

small outdoor filming operation, when he testified before Congress 

last—a short while ago. I was there, and I’m going to quote what 

he said, because he says in it a way that more nearly reflects those 

who are in this business. He said, quote, ‘‘By its very nature, wildlife photography is extremely time consuming. While large film and 

television production crews need relatively little time on public 

lands to complete their project, our Nation’s professional outdoor 

media may spend weeks or months in the field in order to capture 

a few magic seconds of unstaged nature in its pristine state. When 

outdoor media members spend time in the field under the current 

fee structure, we also spend money and we spend a lot of it.’’ That’s 

all a quote. 

The small professional outdoor filming industry has had enough 

of the natural barriers. The Federal Government shouldn’t impose 

itself as another barrier, through daily fees, adding to the expense. 

I’ve received letters from at least 15 small filming producers from 

across the country, all highlighting the need for—to standardize 

the permitting to film at reduced costs for these small producers. 

I would ask that their letters—I have them with me—be made a 

part of the record, along with the statement by the gentleman that 

I just quoted. 

Senator WYDEN. Without objection, it’s ordered. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, I think that this is something that, once 

people realize that, if you are precluding these individuals from 

going out and showing the whole world what we have to offer, that 

you’re really doing a disservice to those natural resources and cutting off a lot of people who otherwise would take advantage of 

them. 

Senator WYDEN. I think it’s well put, Senator, and we will work 

closely with you on it. I think it’s my sense—what we’ll do is get 

the majority and the minority staff to reach out to your folks and 

Senator Tester’s staff and see what we can do to—— 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, that’s what we would request. 

Senator WYDEN. We will get that done quickly. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Just a few remarks, Chairman Wyden, and I appreciate the opportunity. 

First of all, I want to thank Senator Inhofe for his leadership on 

this commonsense piece of legislation. It simply makes sense to do 

this. 

As Senator Inhofe explained, this bill allows small film crews— 

less than 5 people—to apply for an annual filming permit on all 

Federal lands at the rate of 200 bucks a year. 

Arguably, one of the greatest resources the United States possesses is its public lands, where we work and play. As we watch 
10 

public lands become more and more difficult to access, this bill is 

important for 2 reasons: First, the filming industry provides a gateway for Americans to experience the treasures of our public lands, 

even when they cannot drive across a place like Going-to-the-Sun 

Road or watch Old Faithful erupt or go to fish in the headwaters 

at the Missouri, themselves. Second, our public lands are just that, 

they’re public. 

It is important to make sure that there is a level playing field 

for all filmmakers and producers to access to these lands where 

they can practice their profession. By standardizing the regulation 

across all agencies, with one permit for small crews, it designates 

a clear path for our professional outdoor media members to have 

fair and even access to our national lands. 

In 2000, when Congress passed the law to assess fees on film 

crews, the aim was to keep Hollywood-style production crews from 

negatively impacting our public lands. Unfortunately, that legislation was interrupted so broad that now small film crews, who have 

a minimal impact, are—and are serving the public interests, filming hunter-safety videos or documenting outdoor events, are put to 

the same level as multimillion-dollar productions. 

As vice chairman of the Sportsman Caucus, I’m proud to say that 

the Senate Sportsmen’s Caucus leadership supports this bill and its 

effort to promote exposure and access to the great outdoors. Additionally, over 30 outdoor and journalism groups have signed on in 

support of this legislation. 

I look forward to working with the committee. I—looking forward 

to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the administration, to assure that all journalists and videographers are not unduly burdened from sharing the beauty and wealth of our public lands. 

Once again, thank you, to Senator Inhofe, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you both, and we’ll follow up quickly and 

get these staff discussions moving, and see what we can do to get 

this worked out. Thank you both. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Let us bring forward, now, Marcilynn Burke, 

deputy director of Bureau of Land Management, and Faye Krueger, 

acting associate deputy chief, National Forest System of the Forest 

Service. 

Voice: While you’re waiting, can you put Senator Reid and Senator Ensign’s statement on their Nevada bill in the record? 

Senator WYDEN. All right. 

While our witnesses are coming forward, I’d like to put in—into 

the record, by unanimous consent, the statement of the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and the statement of Senator John Ensign, his colleague from Nevada. Both of them are offering statements on S. 3185. Let us have them entered into the record at this 

point. 

[The information follows:] 

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

ON S. 3185 

I want to thank Chairman Wyden, Senator Barrasso, and the other members of 

the committee for holding this hearing on the Elko Motocross and Tribal Conveyance Act, S.3185. 
11 

My bill would direct the Bureau of Land Management to transfer two parcels of 

land. Title I would convey to Elko County approximately 300 acres just west of the 

City of Elko to provide space for the construction of a BMX, motocross, off-highway 

vehicle, and stock car racing area. Title II would direct the Secretary of the Interior 

to take 373 acres of public land into trust to expand the Elko Indian Colony. 

I salute Elko County for being proactive on this issue. Through the development 

of the Motocross Park, they are making sure that the people of northeastern Nevada 

have a high-quality facility for safe motorized recreation. People from across northern Nevada will be able to use and enjoy this new facility. 

Whether their sport is stock cars, BMX, off-highway vehicles, or dirt bikes, motorized recreation is a big part of life in the Silver State. An added bonus of this new 

site is that it will provide an economic boost for the community through construction 

jobs in the short-term and thousands of visitors over the long-term. The facility will 

provide a place for people to learn responsible use and enjoyment of recreational vehicles and can serve as a model for other communities that are interested in providing diverse motorized recreation opportunities. 

Mr. Chairman, Elko has also been home for generations of Western Shoshone Indians. The Elko Band have been an important part of the Elko Community since 

it was established in the late 1800s. In spite of a steadily growing population, the 

colony has not expanded for 75 years and most members of the Elko Band have to 

make their homes outside of the colony. 

As you know, land is lifeblood for Native Americans. It is a place to make a home 

and earn a living, a place tied to ancestors, and key in the preservation of culture 

and language. My legislation provides space for appropriate residential and commercial development, as well as for traditional uses, such as ceremonial gatherings and 

plant collecting. 

Small adjustments like these two land transfers are vital to the healthy development of Nevada’s rural communities. I would like to commend the City of Elko, Elko 

County, the Elko Band, and the rest of the community members whose collaboration 

on both of these efforts made this legislation possible. 

I greatly appreciate the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member making 

time for this hearing and I look forward to working with the Committee to advance 

this bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA, ON S. 3185 

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barasso, and members of the 

Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and testify in support 

of S. 3185, a bill relating to lands issues in Elko County, Nevada, which is supported by both Senator Reid and me. We appreciate you holding this hearing today. 

This bill will do two things for Elko County. First: it will convey approximately 

300 acres of lands managed by the BLM to Elko County to be used as a dedicated 

motocross facility. Second: it will take about 380 acres of BLM-managed land into 

trust to be used by the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone. 

Elko County has grown significantly over the past ten years. It is an area where 

outdoor enthusiasts are always looking for new places to recreate. This conveyance 

will provide a place for OHVs, dirt bikes, motor cycles, etc. to ride and play in a 

safe, designated area. This is good for the County, the public and the environment. 

The Te-Moak Tribe has grown significantly over the past several years as well, 

but their tribal lands have not been increased. The Tribe needs to expand their residential areas, as well as have the ability to look at economic development opportunities. There is a road in the acreage to be added to the reservation that is used by 

the citizens of Elko. This bill provides for a right-of-way conveyance of that road to 

the City of Elko. 

As you know, over 87% of the land in Nevada is managed by the federal government. This is the largest amount in the lower 48 states. Without this type of legislation, counties, cities and local governments cannot grow, expand economic enterprises, and address the needs of their citizens. 

Thank you again for holding this hearing and for giving me the opportunity to 

be here and testify on the importance of this legislation for both Elko County and 

my state. I urge the Subcommittee to act favorably on S. 3185. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. We have 2 stalwarts, I believe, before this 

subcommittee, who’ve been here and—before us, before. 

So, Ms. Burke, why don’t you begin. We’ll make your prepared 

statements a part of the record in their entirety. If you could sum-
12 

marize, in 5 minutes or so, your views. Then we’ll go right to you, 

Ms. Krueger. 

STATEMENT OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. BURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify here today. 

We’ll be testifying on 5 bills today, beginning with S. 1241, the 

film permitting on Federal lands. S. 1241 amends public law 106– 

206 and directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 

Agriculture to discuss—to issue annual permits and assess annual 

fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for film crews 

of 5 persons or fewer. 

While we are sympathetic with the goals of this legislation, the 

Department cannot support S. 1241. Although the annual permit 

envisioned in S. 1241 may simplify the permitting process for commercial filming by small crews, it would limit the ability of Federal 

land management agencies to manage commercial activities to protect natural and cultural resources and to minimize disruption to 

the public’s enjoyment of these sites. 

The National Park Service is the lead agency for the Department 

on this issue, and Phillip Selleck, who is the chief of regulations 

and special park uses from the National Park Service, is here with 

me today, and he is here to answer any questions you may have 

concerning S. 1241. 

S. 2762, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act, the Department of the Interior supports designation of the McKenna Peak 

Wilderness on 8600 acres managed by the BLM, as proposed in S. 

2762, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act. We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding designations on lands managed 

by the Forest Service. 

S. 2762 is the result of collaborative efforts in the local community, which included discussions with county commissioners, adjacent landowners, ranchers, conservationists, recreationists, and 

other interested parties. The results are wilderness designations on 

both BLM and Forest Service-managed lands in San Miguel, 

Ouray, and San Juan Counties. 

S. 3075. The Department of the Interior supports S. 3075, subject 

to valid existing rights, which would withdrawal Federal lands 

within the North Fork Watershed of Montana’s Flathead River 

from all forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining laws, 

and from disposition under all laws related to mineral or geothermal leasing. 

The Federal land affected by this legislation is in the Flathead 

National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for the surface management of National Forest System land; however, the 

Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, is responsible for administering the Federal subsurface mineral estate. The Department of the Interior is committed to maintaining the integrity of 

the resources in Glacier National Park as one of the most noteworthy natural and cultural resources within our Nation. 

As one-half of the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, 

this land is one of the largest, most pristine and intact pieces of 
13 

natural terrain in North America. Enactment of this legislation 

would mark an important milestone in preserving the remarkable 

resources of not only the International Peace Park, but the entire 

Crown of the Continent ecosystem. 

S. 3185 would convey approximately 300 acres of BLM-managed 

lands to the county of Elko, Nevada, for a public motocross park. 

The bill also directs that approximately 373 additional acres of 

BLM-managed lands be taken into trust for the Te-Moak Tribe of 

Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada. 

The BLM supports these conveyances and would like to work 

with the sponsor and the committee on minor technical amendments to the bill. 

The BLM supports H.R. 86, which would eliminate old withdrawals on public lands off the coast of Orange County, California, 

and allow inclusion of these rocks, islands, and exposed reefs within the California Coastal National Monument. We look forward to 

passage of this legislation, which would ensure the long-term protection and preservation of these important coastal features and 

pave the way for an important local community stewardship initiative. 

Again, thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to 

testify today, and we would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Burke follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

H.R. 86

Thank you for inviting the Department of the Interior to testify on H.R. 86, which 

would add certain rocks and small islands along the coast of Orange County, California, to the California Coastal National Monument managed by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM). The BLM supports H.R. 86. 

Background 

The California Coastal National Monument, part of the BLM’s National Landscape Conservation System, was established by a Presidential Proclamation by 

President Clinton on January 11, 2000, to protect: 

all unappropriated or unreserved lands and interest in lands owned or 

controlled by the United States in the form of islands, rocks, exposed reefs, 

and pinnacles . . . within 12 nautical miles of the shoreline of the State of 

California.’’ Covering more than 20,000 rocks and small islands spread 

along 1,100 miles of the California coastline, the Presidential Proclamation 

protects the Monument’s overwhelming scenic quality and natural beauty. 

The Proclamation specifically calls for the protection of the geologic formations and the habitat that these rocks and small islands provide for 

seabirds, marine mammals, and other plant and animal life, both terrestrial and marine. 

Some particularly significant public rocks and islands off the coast of Orange 

County in the Laguna Beach area provide important habitat for a wide variety of 

upper rocky intertidal species, as well as various shorebird species. Additionally, 

four rock locations—Bird Rock and Two Rocks off the City of Laguna Beach, San 

Juan Rocks off the City of Dana Point, and San Marcos Rocks off the southern portion of the City of San Clemente—provide important roosting habitat for seabirds 

(including cormorants and the Federally-listed brown pelican) and haul-out areas for 

seals and sea lions. 

In the process of working with local communities on planning for the California 

Coastal National Monument, the BLM discovered that the rock features off the 

coastline of Orange County were under Congressional withdrawals dating from the 

1930s and, therefore, were not included within the Monument. These withdrawals 

include more than 40 offshore rocks, small islands, exposed reefs, and pinnacles located within one mile of the coast of Orange County, California, totaling approxi-
14 

mately two acres above mean high tide. More than 70 years old, the withdrawals 

were originally intended to temporarily reserve the Orange County offshore rocks 

and small islands for ‘‘park, scenic, or other public purposes’’ (1931 Act), and reserve 

three specific offshore rock clusters for the possibility of future lighthouses (1935 

Act), which were never built. These withdrawals were ultimately never utilized and 

are no longer needed. 

The Laguna Ocean Foundation has led a community-wide effort to include these 

significant areas within the California Coastal National Monument. The Foundation 

has worked with the City of Laguna Beach and other local groups, including the 

Audubon Society and the Surfrider Foundation, on a variety of city and area-wide 

coastal protection and monitoring projects, which resulted in H.R. 86. 

H.R. 86 

H.R. 86 would eliminate the existing withdrawals on these public lands off the 

coast of Orange County and place these features within the existing California 

Coastal National Monument. The BLM supports the revocation of the old withdrawals and the inclusion of these rocks, islands, and exposed reefs within the 

Monument. 

The BLM has been working with partners along the 1,100 mile California coast 

to create a series of California Coastal National Monument Gateway community initiatives. These Gateway initiatives are a means to support organized local stewardship of various California coastal areas through the development of a consortium of 

the area’s resource managers and advocates. The Laguna Beach community has expressed strong interest in developing a California Coastal National Monument Gateway initiative for the Orange County coastal area. Inclusion of these rocks and islands within the Monument will allow the BLM to work with the community to provide responsible, long-term stewardship of these valuable areas. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 86. We look forward 

to passage of this legislation which would place these significant features off the 

coast of Orange County within the California Coastal National Monument, thus ensuring their long-term protection and preservation, and paving the way for an important local community stewardship initiative. 

S. 1241

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

to appear before you today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 

1241, a bill to amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and 

the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual fees for 

commercial filming activities in areas designated for public use on federal lands and 

waterways for film crews of five persons or fewer. 

While we are sympathetic with the goals of this legislation, the Department cannot support S. 1241. Although the annual permit envisioned in S. 1241 may simplify 

the permitting process for commercial filming by small crews, it would limit the 

ability of federal land management agencies to manage commercial filming activities 

to protect natural and cultural resources and minimize disruption to the public’s enjoyment these sites. 

S. 1241 would amend Public Law 106-206 by requiring the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to create a permit program for commercial film crews of five 

persons or less for filming during public hours on federal lands and waterways. The 

bill proposes an annual permit with a fee of $200 to allow up to a five-person film 

crew to conduct commercial filming activities on public lands. A permittee could not 

be assessed any additional fees for commercial filming on public lands or waterways. 

The Secretaries would not be allowed to restrict the use of cameras or related equipment or other mechanized apparatus. 

Public Law 106-206 requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to establish a fee system and a permit process for commercial filming activities on federal lands. The Secretaries also are directed to recover all costs associated with 

processing permit requests, to monitor the permitted activities, and to charge a fee 

that provides a fair return to the United States for the use of public lands. 

Commercial film makers and videographers visit our national parks, refuges, forests, public lands and monuments to produce programs that educate, enlighten, and 

entertain. They create films, documentaries, television programs, and other products 

that introduce the public to natural and cultural resources and recreational opportunities of our parks, monuments, forests, public lands, and refuges. It is important 

that these commercial filming activities be managed to avoid disruption to visitor 
15 

activities while protecting our nation’s natural and cultural resources and landscapes. 

Currently, film permits for individual projects allow each of the federal land management agencies to be aware of where filming is occurring. The Department is concerned that an annual permit, as proposed in S. 1241, could result in the agencies 

losing their ability to regulate where filming could take place, the duration of filming, and other conditions under which filming could take place. In addition, it appears that such a permit, as proposed, could be issued by a manager from one agency within the Department and be valid for one year on lands administered by other 

Departmental agencies. 

This is particularly important for areas such as National Wildlife Refuges that 

have sensitive or closed wildlife areas and no, or limited, staff present on site to 

monitor the activity authorized by the permit. Issuing commercial filming permits 

on a case-by-case basis allows federal land management agencies to include locationspecific conditions to protect natural and cultural resources, to minimize disruption 

to visitors, and to ensure public health and safety. Individual permits also allow 

commercial filming activities to be scheduled so that an area is not over used and 

provides commercial film crews use of an area without competition from other permitted activities where appropriate. 

There are also locations in some federal units where commercial filming during 

public hours may be inappropriate, even for a small crew, such as inside historic 

buildings, or areas where wildlife nesting or breeding activities may require that access to an area be restricted. Further, the Wilderness Act restricts commercial activities in wilderness areas, so while the area is open to the public, commercial filming in wilderness, even by small commercial crews, may be inappropriate. 

Even small commercial filming activities may require cameras and tripods, reflectors, generators, lights, cables, actors, props, sets, and other equipment. It is important that federal agencies have the ability to monitor filming activities and the type 

and amount of equipment associated with commercial filming activities, which could 

vary from one filming opportunity to another, if this equipment could cause resource 

damage, impact wildlife management and wildlife-dependant recreational activities 

such as hunting and wildlife viewing, or create safety hazards for visitors. 

The Department is also concerned that S. 1241 could allow large-scale commercial 

filming organizations to avoid paying for use of public lands. For example, the producers of television commercials frequently use Bureau of Land Management lands 

with props and models. Under S. 1241, an advertisement for beer, cars, or clothing 

could be filmed with only a small crew actually entering public lands and taking 

unintended advantage of the authority. Crews could also be divided into small 

groups of five and likewise circumvent the intent of this legislation. 

Finally, one of the purposes of P.L. 106-206 is to require that a fair fee be paid 

for the use of public lands used for commercial filming activities. The Department 

is concerned that the payment of an annual $200 permit fee may not adequately 

reimburse the federal government for the administrative and staff costs associated 

with use of federal lands for a full year. For example, if filming in the geyser basin 

at Yellowstone, the permittee must have a NPS monitor for visitor safety reasons. 

The annual fee may not cover the cost of issuing the permit as well as staff time 

to monitor the activity. 

The Department of the Interior looks forward to working with the Committee to 

address the concerns we have raised in our testimony. We are sympathetic to the 

small nature videographers, but at the same time we want to insure our ability to 

protect important natural, historic, and cultural resources. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the Department with the opportunity to 

present this statement. 

S. 2762

Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 2762, the San Juan Mountains Wilderness Act. The Department of the Interior supports the designation of the McKenna Peak Wilderness on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 

We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding designations on lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (FS). 

Background 

The McKenna Peak Wilderness Study Area (WSA) covers nearly 20,000 acres of 

BLM-managed lands in San Miguel and Dolores Counties in southwestern Colorado. 

This WSA is currently managed by the BLM to protect its wilderness characteristics 

while awaiting Congressional action. 

This area is rich in wildlife, including mule deer, elk, mountain lions, black bear, 

and a variety of raptors. McKenna Peak is also home to the Spring Creek wild horse 
16 

herd. Geologically, the area is quite diverse. It includes 100 million year-old remnants of inland seas (now black Mancos shale rich in invertebrate marine fossils), 

as well as the 8,000-foot McKenna Peak with ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, and 

mountain mahogany. This area offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities, 

including hunting, hiking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing, 

all of which are compatible with this wilderness designation. 

S. 2762 

We understand that S. 2762 is the result of a collaborative process, which included discussions between the Colorado Congressional delegation, county commissioners, adjacent landowners, ranchers, conservationists, recreationists, and other 

interested parties. The results are the proposed extensive wilderness designations 

on both BLM-and FS-managed lands in San Miguel, Ouray, and San Juan Counties. 

As I noted, the Department of the Interior defers to the Department of Agriculture 

regarding designations on lands managed by the FS. 

Section 3(a)(4) of the bill designates 8,614 acres of the existing BLM-managed 

McKenna Peak WSA as wilderness. The BLM supports this designation. The legislation covers only those areas of the WSA in San Miguel County. The remaining almost 11,000 acres of the WSA are south of the proposed wilderness in Dolores County and are not addressed in the legislation. These acres will remain in WSA status, 

pending Congressional action. The BLM and the Department would support future 

designation of this area in order to improve the manageability of the area. 

We would request the opportunity to work with the Sponsor and the Committee 

on some technical provisions, including corrections to the map reference. The BLM 

is currently completing a careful review of the boundaries of the proposed wilderness area to ensure manageability and would welcome the opportunity to work with 

the sponsor on possible minor modifications. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 2762. We look forward 

to its inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

S. 3075

Thank you for the invitation to testify on S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010. The Department of the Interior supports S. 3075, which would 

withdraw Federal lands within the North Fork watershed of Montana’s Flathead 

River from all forms of location, entry, and patent under the mining laws and from 

disposition under all laws related to mineral or geothermal leasing. Enactment of 

S. 3075 would mark an important milestone in the work occurring across multiple 

jurisdictions to help preserve the remarkable resources in the Crown of the Continent ecosystem. 

Background 

The Flathead River Basin, a key portion of an area known as the Crown of the 

Continent ecosystem, spans the boundaries of the United States and Canada. It includes part of the United States’ Glacier National Park and borders Canada’s 

Waterton Lakes National Park. These two parks comprise the world’s first International Peace Park as well as a World Heritage Site. The U.S. Forest Service’s 

Flathead National Forest is also located within the Flathead River watershed. The 

Bureau of Land Management manages the Federal mineral estate underlying the 

Flathead National Forest. 

Running along the west side of the Continental Divide, the North Fork of the 

Flathead River enters the United States at the Canadian border and forms the 

western border of Glacier National Park until its confluence with the Middle Fork 

of the Flathead River near the southern end of Glacier National Park. The North 

Fork watershed, a sub-basin of the Flathead River watershed, includes areas currently managed by the National Park Service, the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest 

Service, and some private landowners. 

The Flathead River Basin is recognized for its natural resource values, including 

wildlife corridors for large and medium-sized carnivores, aquatic habitat, and plant 

species diversity. The area is rich in cultural heritage resources, with archeological 

evidence of human habitation starting 10,000 years ago. Several Indian tribes, including the Blackfeet, the Salish, and the Kootenai, have a well-established presence in the area. The area also has celebrated recreational opportunities, including 

hunting, fishing, and backcountry hiking and camping. 

There has been interest in protecting the Crown of the Continent resources for 

some time. On February 18, 2010, the State of Montana and the Province of British 

Columbia executed a Memorandum of Understanding which addresses a myriad of 
17 

issues related to the Flathead River Basin on both sides of the U.S.—Canada border. The intention of Part I.A. of that memorandum is to ‘‘[r]emove mining, oil and 

gas, and coal development as permissible land uses in the Flathead River Basin.’’ 

The Flathead River Basin contains Federally-owned subsurface mineral estate 

under National Forest System lands that the Federal government has leased for oil 

and gas development, including 115 oil and gas leases in the North Fork watershed 

that the BLM issued between 1982 and 1985. The leases, which cover over 225,000 

acres, are inactive and under suspension as part of the 1985 court case Conner v. 

Burford. The BLM has not offered any other leases in the Flathead National Forest 

since the Conner v. Burford litigation suspended the existing leases in 1985. 

The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for the surface management of National 

Forest System land; however, as noted earlier, the Secretary of the Interior and the 

BLM are responsible for administering the Federal subsurface mineral estate under 

the Mining Law of 1872, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, and various mineral leasing acts. With respect to locatable minerals and oil and gas resources, the Forest 

Service has authority to regulate the effects of mineral operations upon National 

Forest System resources. The BLM only issues mineral leases for locatable minerals 

and oil and gas resources upon concurrence of the surface management agency and 

always works cooperatively with the agency to ensure that management goals and 

objectives for mineral exploration and development activities are achieved, that operations are conducted to minimize effects on natural resources, and that the land 

affected by operations is reclaimed. 

S. 3075 

S. 3075 withdraws all Federal lands or interest in lands, comprised of approximately 291,000 acres of the Flathead National Forest, within the North Fork watershed of the Flathead River from all forms of location, entry, and patent under the 

mining laws and from disposition under all laws related to mineral or geothermal 

leasing. We note that National Park acreage within the watershed is already unavailable for mineral entry. S. 3075 does not affect valid, existing rights, including 

the 115 leases in the North Fork watershed that are suspended under the Conner 

v. Burford litigation. The Department fully supports S. 3075 as it furthers the goal 

of preserving the important resources of this region. 

The Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, which extends from Canada into 

the United States, is one of the great protected ecosystems on the North American 

continent. A 2010 World Heritage Center/International Union for the Conservation 

of Nature Report noted that the International Peace Park is ‘‘one of the largest, 

most pristine, intact, and best protected expanses of natural terrain in North America. It provides the wide range of non-fragmented habitats and key ecological connections that are vital for the survival and security of wildlife and plants in the 

Waterton-Glacier property and the Flathead watershed.’’ Retaining this expanse of 

natural landscape in the Crown of the Continent ecosystem is of vital importance 

for providing ecosystem connectivity, which is essential for the growth and survival 

of plants and animals in the region. S. 3075 will help accomplish this goal. 

The Department of the Interior is also committed to maintaining the ecological 

integrity of Glacier National Park, one of the most noteworthy natural and cultural 

treasures of our Nation. Preserving the region’s and the park’s water resources is 

also critical. The rich aquatic ecosystems provide breeding and feeding habitats for 

a variety of important species, and the Department recognizes the importance of 

maintaining critical habitat corridors when planning for resources uses. S. 3075 will 

help protect and preserve the important resources of the greater Crown of the Continent ecosystem, including those within Glacier National Park. 

Conclusion 

The Department supports S. 3075 and commends the many parties involved in 

protecting the North Fork of the Flathead River and the important resources shared 

by the United States and Canada. We hope that this legislation and the efforts of 

the federal and state/provincial governments add to the important legacy of conservation in the Glacier/Waterton Lakes area and Flathead River basin. 

S. 3185

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3185, the Elko Motocross and Tribal 

Conveyance Act. S. 3185 would convey, without consideration, approximately 300 

acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the County 

of Elko, Nevada. The legislation also directs that approximately 373 additional acres 

of BLM-managed lands be taken into trust for the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada. The BLM supports the conveyances. We would like to 
18 

work with the sponsor and the Committee on minor technical amendments to the 

bill. 

Background 

The Elko Motocross and Tribal Conveyance Act represents years of cooperative efforts between the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Tribe), 

the City of Elko (city), the County of Elko (county), and the BLM. Both the county 

and the Tribe have had on-going discussions with the BLM about various lands near 

the city. 

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) Act authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to lease or convey public lands for recreational and public purposes, including campgrounds, municipal buildings, hospitals, and other facilities benefitting 

the public, and this administrative authority could be utilized for the Elko conveyance. The county submitted an R&PP application to the BLM in 2005 for approximately 266 acres. The county intended to use the land for a motocross/off-highway 

vehicle training and recreation area for the public. This parcel is largely vacant, but 

contains a number of rights-of-way, including a road and a gas pipeline. The BLM 

Elko Resource Management Plan (RMP) identified this parcel as available for disposal in support of community expansion. 

The land for which the Tribe seeks trust status is adjacent to an existing parcel 

of the Elko Colony. The Elko Colony, approximately 190 non-contiguous acres adjacent to the city, is one of four separate colonies inhabited by the Te-Moak Tribe of 

Western Shoshone Indians. The population of the Elko Band of the Te-Moak Tribe 

has grown steadily, but because their land base has remained unchanged for many 

years additional land is needed for housing and community development. This parcel is also largely vacant, but contains two rights-of-way held by the city for water 

pipelines and storage, and one pending right-of-way application for a future city 

road. The BLM Elko RMP also identifies this parcel as available for disposal in support of community expansion. 

S. 3185 

S. 3185 proposes to convey approximately 300 acres of BLM-managed lands to the 

county at no cost for a public motocross park. The conveyance would be subject to 

valid existing rights. The bill requires that the land be used only for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act and includes a reversionary clause to enforce that requirement. Finally, the bill requires the county to pay all administrative costs associated with the transfer. 

The bill also directs that approximately 373 acres of land currently administered 

by the BLM be taken into trust for the Tribe. The bill requires the BLM, prior to 

the taking of land into trust, to complete the environmental review process for the 

conveyance of a pending right-of-way application for a city road. S. 3185 also addresses valid existing rights and gaming. 

As a matter of policy, the BLM supports working with local governments to resolve land tenure issues that advance worthwhile public policy objectives. In general, the BLM supports conveyances if the lands are to be used for purposes consistent with the R&PP Act and include a reversionary clause at the discretion of 

the Secretary to enforce that requirement. The BLM strongly believes that open 

communication between the BLM and tribes is essential in maintaining effective 

government-to-government relationships. In this spirit, the BLM has had a cooperative working relationship with the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of 

Nevada on this requested conveyance. As such, the BLM supports S. 3185 with 

minor technical amendments. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to continuing to work 

with the bill’s sponsor and Committee on this important legislation. 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Burke, thank you very much. 

Ms. Krueger, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF FAYE KRUEGER, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

CHIEF, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ms. KRUEGER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on several bills 

being considered here today. 
19 

The first bill, S. 1241, directs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, as mentioned earlier, to permit for a 12-month period 

and assess annual fees of $200 for commercial filming on Federal 

lands. It would apply to crews of 5 persons or fewer. 

Currently, we do not support the bill, as written, because we 

would not be able to issue separate permits based on important 

conditions that we may need. 

We’re also concerned that the bill would be interpreted to require 

authorization in wilderness areas without the opportunity to validate that it would consistent with the purpose of the wilderness, 

as it’s been enacted. We’re sympathetic to the needs of small businesses, and the values they bring to public land, and we find that 

our existing laws and regulations adequately address commercial 

filming on Federal lands. Sometimes, but not always, 5-person 

crews can have serious impacts when they come on National Forest 

System lands. They can bring large vehicles, trailers, generators, or 

other equipment; and if we can tailor a permit to each location and 

individual request, it gives us the best opportunity for oversight of 

operators, and it also provides us to consider the potential resource 

impacts and impacts to our visitors on National Forest System 

lands. 

The second bill, S. 2767—excuse me—2762, San Juan Wilderness 

Act of 2009, designates nine parcels of the Grand Mesa, 

Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest lands as wilderness. 

A little under 25,000 acres of Colorado’s most majestic and remote 

landscapes are included in this bill. It would add this acreage to 

2 existing wilderness areas, Lizard Head and Mount Sneffels. 

The second part of the bill would designate Sheep Mountain area 

as a special management area. It would instruct us to manage and 

maintain wilderness characteristics in the area. 

The third part of the bill would provide for a withdrawal within 

a portion of the Naturita Canyon. 

The Department supports S. 2762, and would like to offer a few 

minor modifications that we think would enhance wilderness values. 

The third bill, S. 1571 and H.R. 1043, provide for a land exchange in the Mendocino National Forest. The lands are currently 

occupied by a youth facility that is owned and operated by Solano 

County. Approximately 82 acres of National Forest System lands 

would be exchanged for about a quarter section of land that the 

county owns in that same drainage. 

We support this legislation and would like to work with the subcommittee in 3 areas: one is to retain water rights and instream 

flows for Stony Creek; the second is to provide access to National 

Forest System lands; and the third is to provide for survey needs 

on the 82-acre parcel that we will convey to the county. 

The final bill is S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection 

Act of 2010. This bill would withdraw approximately 291,000 acres 

of the Flathead National Forest from locatable and leasable mineral laws. This area is affectionately referred to as the Crown of 

the Continent Ecosystem and includes Canada and Glacier National Park. 
20 

This withdrawal would be subject to valid existing rights, and 

this bill would not affect current existing oil and gas leases, because an existing lease would constitute a valid existing right. 

The Department also supports this bill. 

This concludes my oral statement. I’d be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statements of Ms. Krueger follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF FAYE KRUEGER, ACTING ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, 

FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

S. 1241

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

to be here today and provide the Department of Agriculture’s views on S. 1241. 

S. 1241 would direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to require annual permits and assess annual land use fees for commercial filming on federal 

lands involving a crew of 5 persons or fewer. Specifically, the bill would require permits for commercial filming involving a crew of 5 persons or fewer that would cover 

filming in areas designated for public use on federal lands during a 12-month period. In addition, the bill would require a fee of $200 for those permits. USDA defers 

to the Department of the Interior for activities occurring on DOI lands. 

USDA has significant concerns with S. 1241 and cannot support this bill. Upon 

enactment, the bill would supplant the authority of the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) and USDA to issue separate permits and charge separate permit fees for each 

commercial filming activity. In addition, the bill would supplant USDA’s land use 

fee schedule for commercial filming involving a crew of 5 persons or fewer. 

Although we are sympathetic to the needs of small businesses, we believe existing 

laws, regulations, and directives adequately address all commercial filming on federal lands. Even a five-person crew can have serious impacts on the land and interfere with normal visitor use. 

Issuing permits tailored to each use and each location is one of the best tools we 

have for oversight of operators. Often film crews, even small crews, need large vehicles, trailers, generators, and other equipment to conduct their business. Each 

project needs to be evaluated separately to address potential impacts. In addition, 

each project should be assessed a land use fee based on market value. We are also 

concerned that the bill could be interpreted to require authorization of commercial 

filming involving a crew of 5 persons or fewer in wilderness areas, regardless of requirements and considerations in the Wilderness Act. 

Background 

The Forest Service currently issues special use permits for commercial filming 

and still photography and collects land use fees for these activities. The current authority for these permits is Public Law 106-206, which was signed into law on May 

26, 2000, and is codified at 16 U.S.C. 460l-6d. Prior to enactment of P. L. 106-206, 

the Forest Service had authority to issue special use permits and collect land use 

fees for these activities under the Organic Act of 1897, 16 U.S.C. 551. 

Current Policy 

In 2003, the Forest Service amended its directives to make them consistent with 

P. L. 106-206 and to implement the new authority to retain and spend land use fees 

for commercial filming and still photography. These directives contain a definition 

for ‘‘commercial filming’’ that establishes the types of filming activities for which a 

permit is required. The definition excludes filming of breaking news because the 

need to cover breaking news arises suddenly, may evolve quickly, and may cease 

to be newsworthy by the time a permit is issued. 

Land Use Fees 

The Forest Service collects land use fees for commercial filming and still photography based on regional and forest fee schedules. In accordance with P. L. 106-206, 

the Forest Service collects, retains, and spends these fees without further appropriation. Ninety percent of the fee revenues are retained and spent at the local units 

where they are collected to improve customer service and program management for 

commercial filming and still photography. 

Land use fees for commercial filming and still photography are established using 

either regional or forest fee schedules, as required by P.L. 106-206. The $200 fee 

proposed by S. 1241 does not represent market value for the use of federal lands. 
21 

While in certain low-impact scenarios this fee might represent the market rate, in 

many instances, $200 will not reflect the value of the use of federal land for commercial filming. In addition, the lower the land use fee, the lower the amount available to DOI and USDA under the fee retention provisions of P.L. 106-206 to improve 

customer service and program management for commercial filming. 

Commercial Filming in Wilderness 

The Forest Service currently issues permits for commercial filming in a wilderness 

area if the proposed use would contribute to the purposes for which the area was 

established. Section 4(d)(5) of the Wilderness Act, states that commercial services 

may be performed in wilderness areas only to the extent necessary for activities that 

are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas. 

In cooperation with DOI, we plan to publish for public notice and comment definitions and criteria for commercial filming in wilderness areas based on the purposes 

of the Wilderness Act and the limitation on commercial services in Section 4(d)(5) 

of the Wilderness Act. 

We are concerned that S. 1241 could pre-empt these efforts, as it could be interpreted to require authorization of commercial filming involving a crew of 5 persons 

or fewer in wilderness areas, regardless of other considerations and requirements 

in the Wilderness Act. Some of our most pristine lands would be open to commercial 

filming, regardless of these wilderness factors. 

Conclusion 

The proposed legislation has a significant potential to adversely affect federal 

lands, including wilderness areas. Current laws, regulations, and agency directives 

and the proposed interagency fee schedule and Forest Service directives on commercial filming in wilderness areas provide or would provide better resource protection 

and better management of commercial filming, as well as conform to existing statutory and regulatory requirements to obtain market value for the use of federal land. 

We would like to work with the Committee to address the concerns presented by 

S. 1241 and any concerns of the Committee with regard to accommodating small 

film crews under current law and policy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee for the opportunity to 

comment on this bill today. We look forward to working with the Committee on this 

issue. 

S. 1571

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the Department of 

Agriculture’s views on S. 1571, regarding the exchange of certain lands in the 

Mendocino National Forest (MNF). 

The Department supports S. 1571 because it would consolidate four parcels (approximately 162 acres) of private lands, that posses national forest character, partially within, and immediately adjacent to, the Snow Mountain Wilderness area of 

the Grindstone Ranger District, Mendocino National Forest for approximately 82 

acres of National Forest System lands that have been developed by Solano County 

for their youth facility at Fouts Springs. The National Forest System lands, where 

the Fouts Springs Youth Facility is located have lost their national forest character 

because of the development of classrooms, culinary facilities, dormitories, maintenance and administrative facilities associated with the youth facility. 

We respectfully suggest that S. 1571 be amended to ensure any necessary protection of the interests of the United States relating to the water rights associated with 

the National Forest parcel to be conveyed, to provide for survey of, and public access 

across, the land to be conveyed to the County, and to address other technical issues 

related to the exchange. 

The National Forest System (NFS) lands to be conveyed are located within the 

Grindstone Ranger District. Those lands were acquired as part of a land exchange 

with the Setzer Box Company in 1944 and are currently occupied by the Fouts 

Springs Youth Facility (FSYF) under a special use authorization. A 30-year special 

use authorization allows Solano County to operate a 162 bed youth correctional facility. The current permit area is approximately 74 acres. The NFS land adjacent 

to the Fouts Springs Youth Facility is a heavily developed off-highway vehicle area 

managed by the Forest Service. 

The non-federal lands to be conveyed are also located within the Grindstone Ranger District of the MNF. They are known as the Deafy Glade parcels totaling approximately 161.7 acres. The four parcels are adjacent to the southerly boundary of the 

Snow Mountain Wilderness Area. 
22 

Amendments 

We would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee to address any 

concerns regarding the transfer of water rights to the County as part of the exchange. At present, with the water right held by the United States, there is adequate in-stream flow in Stony Creek. If the Fouts Spring Youth Facility were to convey to Solano County, we want to ensure that an adequate in-stream flow is maintained in Stony Creek. 

The NFS parcel to be conveyed has to be delineated and described by a Cadastral 

survey approved by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Providing for a right-of-way across the parcel conveyed to the county would ensure 

access to the surrounding national forest for Forest Service administration and for 

wildfire suppression. 

We also would appreciate the opportunity to work with the Committee on several 

technical aspects of the bill to require that the County provides acceptable title for 

the land its conveys, to refer specifically to the cash equalization provision in the 

reference to section 206 of Federal Land Policy Management Act, to require the 

County to pay appraisal costs, and to provide more specificity regarding the conditions on the use of the land after it is conveyed to the County. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso, This concludes our prepared testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Administration’s views on S. 

1571. I would welcome any questions you might have. 

S. 2762

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

to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on S2762, the ‘‘San Juan 

Mountains Wilderness Act of 2009.’’ 

The Department supports S2762. We would like to offer minor modifications to 

S 2762 that would enhance wilderness values, clarify the special management area 

designation, and improve our ability to manage resources in the area. We thank 

Congressman Salazar for his collaborative approach and local involvement that have 

contributed to this bill. 

The Department defers to the Department of the Interior in regard to the proposal to designate approximately 8,600 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands as the McKenna Peak Wilderness. 

S2762 would designate nine parcels of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests as wilderness under the National Wilderness Preservation System. These areas, totaling approximately 24,800 acres, encompass some of Colorado’s most majestic, remote landscapes with many abundant wildlife species including elk, deer, bighorn sheep, bears and a variety of birds. Several world-class trout 

streams are also found in the areas. These areas also provide opportunities to experience solitude and primitive recreation use for members of the public seeking areas 

to connect with nature. 

These parcels would be additions to two existing wildernesses: Lizard Head and 

Mount Sneffels. In addition, S2762 would designate the Sheep Mountain area as a 

Special Management Area to be managed to maintain the area’s existing wilderness 

character and potential for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Also, S2762 would provide for a mineral withdrawal within a portion of 

Naturita Canyon. 

Lizard Head Wilderness Additions 

The Lizard Head Wilderness lies astride the spectacular San Miguel Mountains, 

10 miles southwest of Telluride on the Uncompahgre and San Juan National Forests. Elevations in the area range from 9,500 to over 14,000 feet. The wilderness 

is evenly split between the two national forests and is 41,200 acres in size. 

The proposed wilderness additions include five parcels, encompassing approximately 3,200 acres of National Forest System lands adjacent to the existing wilderness. Neither Forest Plans, completed in 1983, recommended any of the areas for 

wilderness designation. However, wilderness designation would be aligned with the 

current management of the area. No summer motorized recreation is currently allowed and effects to winter motorized recreation will be minimal as there is very 

little snowmobile use of the area. 

Mount Sneffels Wilderness Additions 

The Mount Sneffels Wilderness comprises more than 16,500 acres on the 

Uncompahgre National Forest between the communities of Telluride and Ouray. 

Elevations range from 9,600 to 14,150 feet at the top of Mount Sneffels. 

The proposed wilderness additions include four parcels that encompass approximately 21,600 acres of NFS lands adjacent to the existing wilderness. As with the 
23 

Lizard Head Additions, even though this area was not recommended as wilderness 

in the forest plan, designation is generally aligned with forest plan direction and 

will have minimal effects on summer and winter recreation. 

We would like to work with the subcommittee to address some technical aspects 

of the bill. We recommend changing the wilderness boundary near Telluride to allow 

for potential construction work to address periodic floods with debris flows and provide for a more definitive boundary by following a cliff formation. Additionally, we 

remain concerned that the legislation would provide for continuation of a competitive footrace event in designated wilderness. Current Forest Service policy does not 

permit competitive events and this reflects the Wilderness Act prohibition against 

commercial enterprise. 

Sheep Mountain Special Management Area 

S2762 would also designate an area of about 21,700 acres of NFS land that lies 

south of the town of Ophir as a special management area. About 9,900 acres are 

within the Uncompahgre National Forest and about 11,800 acres are within the San 

Juan National Forest. This area contains some lands purchased recently with funds 

provided by Congress as part of the Ophir Valley Land and Water Conservation 

Fund project. 

Elevations in the area range from 10,200 to almost 13,900 feet at the top of 

Vermillion Peak. The area is dense with spruce and fir trees at the lower elevations. 

Above timberline are high alpine valleys with numerous lakes, tarns and waterfalls 

beneath dramatic 13,000-foot peaks and serrated ridges. The Forest Plans identify 

half of the area to be managed for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation and the 

other half for other recreation purposes. 

As with the Mount Sneffels Wilderness additions, we have concerns that if this 

area becomes wilderness, the legislation allows for the continuation of a competitive 

footrace event. 

Naturita Canyon Withdrawal 

S2762 would also provide for a withdrawal on approximately 6,600 acres of National Forest System lands within Naturita Canyon on the Uncompahgre National 

Forest, about five miles south of the community of Norwood. Naturita Canyon is relatively low-elevation river drainage (7,000 feet) with steep canyon walls that tower 

1,000 feet. There are no current leases within the area proposed for withdrawal. Impacts on available oil and gas resources for this withdrawal are unknown. Further 

exploration information would be needed for a conclusive assessment. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

S. 3075

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Barrasso and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture 

on S. 3075, the ‘‘North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010.’’ 

S. 3075 would, subject to valid existing rights, withdraw National Forest System 

(NFS) lands located in the North Fork of Flathead River watershed in Montana 

which are managed as part of the Flathead National Forest from location, entry, 

and patent under the mining laws and from disposition under the mineral and geothermal leasing laws. The Department supports S. 3075, however, I would like to 

clarify that although the Department has surface management authority concerning 

mineral operations, the management of the federal mineral estate falls within the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior,. We defer to the Department of the Interior on all issues related to the status of the existing claims and leases. 

Background 

The Forest Service administers surface resources on nearly193 million acres of 

NFS lands located in forty-two states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 

Forest Plan for the Flathead National Forest blends areas of multiple uses in the 

North Fork with areas of specific or limited uses elsewhere on the Forest. Under 

current law, NFS lands reserved from the public domain pursuant to the Creative 

Act of 1891, including those in S. 3075, are open to location, entry and patent under 

the United States Mining Laws unless those lands have subsequently been withdrawn from the application of the mining laws. This bill would withdraw approximately 291,000 acres of the Flathead NF from the operation of the locatable and 

leasable mineral laws subject to valid existing rights. 

The North Fork of the Flathead has low to moderate potential for the occurrence 

of locatable and leasable minerals. Much of the North Fork was leased for oil and 

gas in the early 1980s. Subsequently, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 
24 

Forest Service were sued and BLM suspended the leases in 1985 to comply with 

a District Court ruling (Conner v. Burford, 605 F. Supp. 107 (D.Mont.1985)). Presently, there are no active locatable or leasable operations, including oil and gas, in 

the North Fork. There are 115 leases that have been suspended by the Secretary 

of the Interior since 1985. 

Comments on S. 3075 

We recognize the bill would not affect the existing oil and gas leases because they 

would constitute valid existing rights. We also recognize the bill would not change 

the court’s order in Conner v. Burford requiring the BLM and Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental 

Policy Act before authorizing any surface disturbing activities on the affected leases. 

We are pleased that this bill would not preclude the removal and use of mineral 

materials found on the NFS lands that would be subject to the bill. The Flathead 

National Forest and Flathead County rely on the close proximity of local sources of 

aggregate to maintain roads economically and as a source of building materials. 

Commensurate with the goal of S. 3075 to protect the North Fork watershed, the 

ability to continue using those mineral materials would allow us to adequately 

maintain local roads and reduce erosion related impacts to streams and lakes in the 

North Fork. 

We appreciate Senators Baucus and Tester’s strong commitment to protecting 

Montana’s natural resources. 

I would be happy to answer any questions from the committee. Thank you. 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Krueger, Ms. Burke, here’s what we’re 

going to do. Both of you have given succinct statements. We’re 

joined by Senator Udall. I have a few questions on just 2 of the 

bills that have come up, and it’s my intent to do these briefly, and 

then we’ll turn it over to Senator Udall, who I know is going to be 

interested in pursuing his bill, which I think is very constructive, 

and I want to see advance, as well. 

First question, for you, Ms. Krueger. The Department testified in 

opposition to an earlier House version of the Deafy Glade Land Exchange bill in 2008. The Department is now supporting the new 

version of the bill. What’s the Department’s change of mind all 

about? 

Ms. KRUEGER. We looked at a couple factors. 

One factor, when we did a feasibility study, a couple years ago, 

it said that it wasn’t in the public’s best interest to do the land exchange, but didn’t prohibit us from doing that. In this legislation, 

there’s some statement that requires the county to maintain that 

facility, so we support that, as well as—we did ask the county to 

go out and purchase this land that we wanted to exchange, and 

they did that in good faith. So, when we combine those 2 factors, 

that’s the reason we support this land exchange now. 

Senator WYDEN. Question for both of you on the commercial film 

fee legislation, I think would be fair to characterize it. The current 

law on commercial filming fees directs your agencies, your 2 agencies, to establish reasonable filming fees, taking into account the 

number of filming days on Federal lands, the size of the film crew, 

and amount of filming equipment used. Do you all have a national 

fee schedule for the Department of Interior and the Forest Service 

that lays out what a ‘‘reasonable fee’’ is, or does each area establish 

fees on a case-by-case basis? 

Ms. Burke. 

Ms. BURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do not have a national fee. We—even within the BLM, the fees vary, depending on 

location. However, we are working on a unified fee schedule at this 

time. 
25 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Krueger. 

Ms. KRUEGER. We’re in the same situation. We do it on a caseby-case basis, as well. 

Senator WYDEN. You’re also working on a uniform fee schedule? 

Ms. KRUEGER. We are working with Department of Interior on 

that, yes. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

The subcommittee has been told, by some organizations, that it’s 

their view that the agencies charge fees that are geared to larger 

commercial filming operations, but, in their view, are unreasonable 

for the small production operations. What would be your response 

to that, Ms. Burke? 

Ms. BURKE. I think that our proposed fee schedule that we’re 

working on jointly within DOI and Agriculture would address those 

concerns about needing to treat different-sized operations differently. 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Krueger. 

Ms. KRUEGER. I would like to add that we also look at the location of where they’re going to do the filming. I’ve had experience 

where there’s been some filming that’s been done, but we’ve had to 

do crowd control or coordinate days when we go out to do the filming, versus on how active the public is going to be on a certain day. 

I’ve also had experience where we’ve looked at wildlife concerns, 

nesting of birds at a certain period of time. 

So, each situation, we like to look at, to make sure we are managing for our resources and our visitors. 

Senator WYDEN. So, when would you expect to have these new 

rules out? I mean, in effect, what you told me—I guess you’re making a little bit a news here this afternoon—is that you’re interested 

in moving from a sort of case-by-case approach, with respect to 

filming fees, to your 2 agencies coming up with a coordinated approach that would be embodied in a rule, or something that would 

be made public. When do you expect that to be out publicly? 

Ms. BURKE. Our hope is that it’ll be soon. We are still undergoing 

departmental review, but we do have a working draft that is very 

close to being completed. 

Senator WYDEN. So, you’d say 60 days? 

Ms. BURKE. I would say ‘‘soon.’’ 

Senator WYDEN. Ninety days? 

Ms. BURKE. I would say ‘‘soon.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WYDEN. Ms. Krueger, can we—— 

Ms. KRUEGER. We’re working on it. 

Senator WYDEN [continuing]. Give a little bit more flesh to the 

concept of ‘‘soon’’? 

Ms. KRUEGER. I’m sorry, I can’t give you more flesh to your answer—or, your question. We are working with Department of Interior. They are taking the lead on this. As they go through and create the regulations, we are going to adopt those. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Ms. KRUEGER. So, we are working in tandem—— 

Senator WYDEN. I’d like, within a week, a response to the question. 

Ms. KRUEGER. All right. 
26 

Ms. BURKE. Absolutely. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. How would the $200 annual filming fee proposed in S. 1241 compare to your current fee structure? 

Ms. Burke. 

Ms. BURKE. Our current fee structure varies by State and by the type of activity, so it’s difficult to say how the $200 fee would impact us. One of our primary concerns is not—is that the annual 

permit would allow film crews to go into areas without us being 

able to adequately manage those activities. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

Ms. Krueger. 

Ms. KRUEGER. As I mentioned, we’re a case-by-case, as well. But, 

on the average, we charge about $100 a day for a small filming 

crew. That’s just a ballpark number. It would limit us in cost recovery, as well. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. 

I’m going to turn this over to Senator Udall. 

The reason this information about your proposals is important is, 

we’ve got colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, that want to move forward with legislation. So, we will await that information within the 

week. 

Look forward to working closely with you. It has always been 

easy to work with both of your agencies, as chair of this subcommittee. 

I’ll turn this over to Senator Udall, who’s got a good bill, and I 

know he’s going to want to ask a number of questions. 

Senator Udall, the gavel is yours. 

Senator UDALL [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Wyden. Thank 

you, before you have to depart, for holding this important hearing. 

I couldn’t help but note when you asked for a definition of ‘‘soon,’’ 

that we’re, right now on the floor of the Senate, working on a series 

of definitions on what—how you describe ‘‘hedges, derivative, 

swaps, credit default swaps, counterparties, and futures.’’ ‘‘Soon’’ is 

the answer. So, we’ll—— 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a full statement I’d like to put in the record in regards 

to S. 2762, the San Juan Wilderness Act. It’s a companion bill to 

the one that my colleague and friend in the House of Representatives, Congressman John Salazar, introduced late last year. I want 

to acknowledge the hard work that Congressman Salazar’s put 

forth, along with many stakeholders in this wonderful and beautiful area of Colorado. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Mark Udall follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARK UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate your agreeing to hold a hearing on S. 2762, the San Juan Wilderness 

Act. 

This bill is a companion to H.R. 3914, the companion bill introduced by my House 

colleague, Representative John Salazar. 

I want to express my appreciation for the extensive work of Representative Salazar and his staff in putting this bill together and working with all stakeholders on 

this bill. 

This bill would designate over 22,000 acres of National Forest and Bureau of 

Land Management land in southwestern Colorado as wilderness. These would be 
27 

additions to some existing wilderness areas in this region. These are important 

lands that possess critical wildlife habitat, clean water, and other scenic values. 

They are very worthy additions. 

It would also establish over 21,000 acres of National Forest as the Sheep Mountain Special Management Area. This is an area that is equally striking and contains 

equally critical resource and scenic value. It is being designated as a special management area so as to continue to allow heli-skiing opportunities. 

Finally, the bill would withdraw from mineral entry over 6,500 acres in the 

Naturita Canyon area, a striking canyon west of Telluride, Colorado. 

In addition to these designations, the bill protects existing water rights, allows 

continued grazing, does not affect the continued operation of a hydroelectric plant, 

and does not interfere with an important and popular footrace, called the Hard Rock 

100. 

I am pleased to join with Representative Salazar in preserving and protecting 

these scenic and important landscapes into our cherished wilderness and special 

management systems. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and I look forward to 

hearing from today’s witnesses. 

Senator UDALL. I wanted to, in particular, mention that the bill 

protects existing water rights, it allows continued grazing, it 

doesn’t affect the continued operation of a hydroelectric plant, and 

it does not interfere with a important and popular footrace called 

the Hardrock One Hundred, which, incidentally, is because it involves a 100-mile footrace, which is no small accomplishment. 

Congressman Salazar has, again, worked hard in order to protect 

these scenic, historic, and important landscapes that deserve inperpetuity protection. 

Ms. Krueger, maybe I could turn to you first. You’ve indicated 

that you’d like to work on some boundary adjustments regarding 

the Mount Sneffels Wilderness additions near Telluride. Could you 

be more specific about where you would like to see the boundary 

moved? 

Ms. KRUEGER. Yes. We’d like to see the boundary move along a 

cliff area that gives a real succinct line, or demarcation, of where 

that boundary would be. We have been working with Telluride 

City, and they’re OK with the boundary, as proposed. We believe 

the boundary going up to the cliff would help with the Hardrock 

One Hundred Race and keep that out of the Wilderness Area for 

a 5-mile segment. So, that’s one area. 

Senator UDALL. Is that the primary boundary adjustment you’d 

like to make? 

Ms. KRUEGER. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Have you raised those concerns with Congressman Salazar, following the hearings of his version of the bill 

in the House? If so, what’s the status of your discussions with him 

and his staff on these concerns? 

Ms. KRUEGER. My understanding is our forest supervisor has 

been working with his office, but I’ll have to get back with you on 

the status. 

Senator UDALL. Will you do so? 

Ms. KRUEGER. Yes, I will. 

Senator UDALL. Just for the record, I’d be happy to work with 

you and his office on that issue and any others that might come 

up—— 

Ms. KRUEGER. All right, thank you. 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. As we move forward. 
28 

Ms. Burke, thank you again for being here. You’ve indicated, in 

your testimony, that you’d like to work on some boundary issues, 

as well, in regards to this bill. Could you be more specific as to the 

nature of your concerns with those boundaries? Have you also 

raised this—your concerns, with Congressman Salazar? If so, 

what’s the status of those discussions? 

I fit 3 questions in there. My apology. 

Ms. BURKE. Right. Yes, you’re correct that we raised a boundary 

issue, and we would support expanding this bill to include the rest 

of the Wilderness Study Area—the southern portion of the Wilderness Study Area—which would help us with manageability. So, 

whether it’s a natural barrier, as the Forest Service indicated, it 

would just be easier for us to manage that land for its wilderness 

characteristics. 

Senator UDALL. Could I interrupt you there—and leaving the 

other 2 questions outstanding—is this the McKenna Peak designation? 

Ms. BURKE. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. So, you would—let me leave that there, and I’m 

going to come back to that, and I’ll let you answer the other 2 parts 

of my initial question. 

Ms. BURKE. The other 2 parts were, Are we working with Representative—— 

Senator UDALL. Congressman—— 

Ms. BURKE. Salazar. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, and what’s the status of those? 

Ms. BURKE. What’s the status of that work? 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Ms. BURKE. We’ve had discussions, but I’m not aware of the current status of those discussions. 

Senator UDALL. OK. As I offered to Ms. Krueger, I’m certainly 

willing and, I think, able to be engaged, as well, in moving those 

discussions along. 

Ms. BURKE. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Let me follow up, as I suggested I would, on 

McKenna Peak. Do you have any sense as to what concerns, if any, 

constituencies may have with expanding the bill’s wilderness designation to include the entire Wilderness Study Area, or as we 

know—as we call it, a WAS, including the portions in Delores 

County? 

Ms. BURKE. Yes. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Ms. BURKE. We are not aware of any specific concerns as the Wilderness Study Area moves into a different county. 

Senator UDALL. You are not. 

Ms. BURKE. No. 

Senator UDALL. Let’s keep the conversation alive in that regard, 

if we might. 

I think, at this point, I don’t have any other additional questions. 

Do either of you have any additional comments before I bring the 

hearing to a close? 

Ms. BURKE. No, thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Thanks again for making the trip to the Hill. 
29 

We will keep the hearing record open for 2 weeks. If any members of the committee have additional questions, we will submit 

them to you in writing. 

Thanks again, to everybody. 

The subcommittee’s adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(31) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

The Administration’s testimony indicates that the land management agencies 

should be allowed to continue permitting and charging land use fees for any commercial film crew of any size. That policy includes individuals filming recreational 

trips to public land and amateur filmmakers entering contests. It also includes educational videos and those made by non-profit organizations. These individual 

filmmakers are impacting the public lands no more than any other hiker, biker or 

skier. Yet, the agencies are charging exorbitant fees and requiring a lengthy permit 

process. Other individual public lands users do not face the same kind of permitting 

and fee structure. 

Question 1a. It seems to me that this policy is difficult to apply fairly. Does the 

Bureau of Land Management intend to apply this same standard to other individual 

users? 

For example, would an amateur photographer have to pay for permitting and land 

use? 

Answer. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) does not charge for filming in 

cases of casual use. Casual use is defined in regulations as ‘‘any short term noncommercial activity which does not cause appreciable damage or disturbance to the 

public lands, their resources or improvements, and which is not prohibited by closure of the lands to such activities.’’ (43 CFR 2920.0-5(k)). Amateur photography is 

considered casual use. The amateur photographer would not be charged fees on public lands, unless the photographer was taking still photographs that use models, sets 

or props, entered an area not generally open to the public, or conducted a photography session that requires agency oversight. (Public Law 106-206). Oversight would 

generally be required for larger still photography activities or in areas of fragile natural or cultural resources or higher visitation. 

Question 1b. Would a non-profit organization leading educational hikes for a fee 

be charged per student? 

Answer. The nonprofit organizational status of an entity is not a factor in determining if an activity is commercial in nature. The BLM issues many commercial 

recreation use permits to nonprofit organizations including Outward Bound, National Outdoor Leadership School, and many other recreational or outdoor activity 

based organizations that operate repeated trips, advertise, provide paid guide staff 

and charge fees for participants. However, organizations such as schools, clubs or 

groups who conduct occasional multi-day group outings, do not have paid guide staff 

and share costs among participants fall under organized group permits. The standard fee for organized group permit is set by regulation and is currently $5.00 per 

person per day. Typically, short-term use of public lands by educational organizations or groups such as a one-day school field trip, day hikes, or use of day use facilities are not charged fees. 

Question 1c. Does the Administration intend to charge the authors of trail guide 

books for land use? 

Answer. No, the BLM does not charge authors of trail use books for land use. 

Question 2. The Rainbow Gathering that took place near Pinedale, Wyoming in 

2008 created significant impacts to Federal lands. Please explain the land use fee 

charged to that organization. Please also provide the fees charged to the group for 

2009 and the permitting process and fee planned for 2010. 
32 

Answer. The Forest Service was the lead agency for the 2008 National Rainbow 

Family Gathering. We defer to the Forest Service as the 2008 ‘‘Rainbow Gathering’’ 

took place on Forest Service lands (Bridger-Teton NF). 

Question 3. Over the past five years, what is the average land use fee charged 

for film crews of five persons or less permitted on Federal lands? 

Answer. The Department of the Interior (Department) does not keep a centralized 

database of the permits issued or fees charged to film crews of five persons or less. 

Question 4. Over the past five years, what is the average time required for the 

processing of each permit for film crews of five persons or less on Federal lands? 

Answer. The Department also does not keep a centralized database of the average 

time required for processing of each commercial filming permit. 

However, as a general matter, the National Park Service (NPS) estimates that a 

permit request for an activity involving a small crew may take from one to five days 

or more to process, depending on factors including the crew’s size, preferred location, 

and their knowledge of NPS policy and regulations. For permits on public lands covered by a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (including popular filming locations in California, Nevada and Utah), the BLM estimates that a permit request 

may take one to five days to process. And the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) estimates that the special use permits for filming on refuge lands are generally processed within 2-3 weeks. 

RESPONSES OF MARCILYNN A. BURKE TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

S.1241

You have testified that the Forest Service and DOI agencies should be allowed 

to continue permitting and charging land use fees for commercial film crews of any 

size. 

Question 1a. Does the Forest Service intend to apply this same standard to other 

individual users? 

For example, would an amateur photographer have to pay for permitting and land 

use, if they enter a photo a contest or get paid for a copy of a photo? 

Answer. We defer to the Forest Service for its response to this question. 

Question 1b. Would a non-profit organization leading educational hikes be charged 

per student? 

Answer. We defer to the Forest Service for its response to this question. 

Question 1c. Does the Forest Service intend to charge the authors of trail guides 

for land use? 

Answer. We defer to the Forest Service for its response to this question. 

Question 2. The Rainbow Gatherings all take place on federal lands and there are 

venders who attend those gatherings who sell products at the gatherings. Using the 

logic provided in your testimony on small film crews; when will the Departments 

begin to charge the rainbow people or the vendors who attend those events a user 

fee? 

Answer. Vending on public lands is considered a commercial recreational use. In 

accordance with 43 C.F.R. 2932.11(a), the venders on public lands would be issued 

permits and charged fees by BLM for their activities. On parklands, the NPS would 

require each vendor to obtain a commercial use authorization and would charge a 

fee in accordance with Public Law 105-391. 

Question 3. Other organizations advertise in environmental magazines to bring 

people to federal lands without permits and sell these tours to individuals, thus 

these activities are very likely commercial ventures. For example, you can find a 

good number of advertisements in the Sierra Club Magazine each issue. Some are 

even Sierra Club organized events. 

Using the logic of your testimony on small film crews, when are your departments 

going to begin charging groups organized through such advertisements a fee to attend these hikes on Federal lands? 

Answer. Under BLM regulations, organizations that advertise in national magazines to sell and conduct tours on public land would be considered commercial users, 

and the tours would be administered under the Special Recreation Permit regulations, 43 C.F.R. 2932.11 (a)(1). The NPS issues commercial use authorizations to 

commercial ventures and charges fees in accordance with Public Law 105-391. Nonprofit organizations are not issued commercial use authorizations pursuant to Public 

Law 105-391 unless they derive taxable income from the activity, however, they may 

be subject to entrance fees. 

Question 4. You indicated the agencies need to be able to recoup their costs; 

please provide the Committee with a detailed lists of the costs by forest (for the For-
33 

est Service) or state (for the BLM), or park (for the Park Service) for each of the 

last 5 years for administering these film crew permits? 

Answer. The NPS’s cost recovery costs filming and photography permits for fiscal 

years 2006-2009 are provided below. Based upon the reporting system that is used, 

it is not possible to provide a detailed park listing. 

FY 2006 $289,398.16 (only represents a partial year) 

FY 2007 $822,771.57 

FY 2008 $697,565.10 

FY 2009 $727,216.10 

The BLM’s cost recovery costs are associated with both processing film permits 

and monitoring the filming. They are as follows by state over the last 5 years: 
34 

FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Totals 

Arizona $4,205 $4,539 $200 $486 $23,484 $32,914 California $66,323 $44,553 $116,963 $93,247 $53,390 $373,476 Colorado $744 $1,200 $2,203 $2,517 $1,149 $7,813 Idaho $175 $454 0 0 0 $629 Montana $1,288 $300 $104 $700 $2,230 $4,622 New Mexico $1,669 $6,312 $4,923 $8,065 $3,510 $24,479 Nevada $5,194 $6,075 $11,233 $10,507 $9,247 $42,256 Oregon $350 0 $3,385 $2,603 $2,370 $8,708 Utah $11,986 $12,380 $9,661 $11,494 $6,753 $52,274 Wyoming $1,029 $1,416 0 0 $709 $3,154 

Totals $92,963 $77,229 $148,672 $129,619 $102,842 $551,325 

May 10, 2010 Information from BLM LR2000 (case recordation) 
35 

Question 5. Please also provide an estimate of the total FTE’s utilized to administer these permits by forest, BLM district, or national park for each of the last five 

years? 

Answer. The BLM has only three states with substantial filming activity-California, Utah and Nevada. Nevada estimates 2 to 3 work months per year or ′ of a 

FTE. Utah estimates 6 to7 work months per year or 1/2 of a FTE total. California 

estimates between 8 and 10 FTEs annually. 

In most park units processing requests for special park use permits, which includes activities such as special events, first amendment activities, commercial filming, and still photography is a collateral duty. Less than 20 parks have staff dedicated to managing the special park uses program and processing permit requests. 

Levels of monitoring vary from project to project. For example, a crew of five filming 

in an historic building would generally be assigned a curator and an electrician to 

monitor the filming activity. In parks without staff dedicated to special park uses, 

monitoring this activity takes employees away from their other duties. 

Question 6. For the BLM, the Forest Service, and US Fish & Wildlife Service 

where hunting or fishing is allowed: 

The states have the responsibility for hunting and fishing licensing and management of those recreationists. If a hunter and one other person film a hunting or fishing trip would they fall under the commercial filming permit program? 

Answer. The BLM would consider activities such as described in this question as 

‘‘casual use’’ and would not require a permit. 43 CFR 2920.0-5(k) defines ‘‘casual 

use’’ as any short-term non-commercial activity which does not cause appreciable 

damage or disturbance to the public lands, their resources or improvements, and 

which is not prohibited by closure of the lands to such activities. 

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the determination 

of whether a filming activity is a commercial use of a national wildlife refuge, or 

whether the activity requires a Special Use Permit, is left to the refuge manager’s 

professional judgment based on the individual circumstances. In this particular 

case, it is highly unlikely that the activity would require a permit unless the people 

filming required special treatment due to access, amount of equipment, interference 

with other visitors’ use of the refuge, etc. If a permit was required for some reason, 

a fee would potentially be charged in accordance with the requirements of Public 

Law 106-206. 

Question 7. If a family is on a lake on federal lands and the father video’s one 

of his children fishing: would that fall under the commercial filming permit program? 

Answer. For the BLM, this activity would also be considered casual use and would 

not require a permit. On a national wildlife refuge, it is highly unlikely that this 

activity would require a Special Use Permit. 

Question 8. In either event described above: if either the hunter or the family happened to capture a trophy animal or fish on film or video and then sold the footage 

to one of the many outdoor shows, would that fall within the commercial filming 

permit program? 

Answer. For the BLM, because the original intent as described in this question 

was casual use and not commercial, this activity would not require a permit under 

BLM regulations. On a national wildlife refuge, as described above, the determination of whether a Special Use Permit is required for filming on a national wildlife 

refuge, and whether a fee will be charged, is made before an activity takes place. 

In this case, if no permit was required beforehand, FWS would not seek to charge 

a fee if the footage was later sold for profit. 

Question 9. How does your agency deal with video taken by private individuals 

of events on public lands that then get shown on TV? 

Answer. For the BLM, a permit would not be required if the original intent was 

casual use or if the filming was associated with broadcasting news. A permit would 

be required for a planned sporting or other event that is filmed for the purpose of 

broadcasting on a regularly scheduled television show. On a national wildlife refuge, 

as described above, the determination of whether a Special Use Permit is required 

for filming on a national wildlife refuge, and whether a fee will be charged, is made 

before an activity takes place. 

Question 10. Does either Department charge its employees a permit fee for taking 

video that then gets viewed on a public TV station or on the Internet—say for instance video from rainbow gatherings, or wildfires? Why not? 

Answer. If filming is undertaken by federal employees on government time, any 

material or product created (video for example) is owned by the federal government. 

If the employee was acting beyond their scope of work, or on their own time, the 

employee would have to comply with the provisions of federal law regarding filming. 
36 

Question 11. Since the states have responsibility for the regulation of hunting and 

fishing why should Congress allow the federal land management agencies to regulate filming on federal lands done in conjunction with hunting or fishing? 

Answer. Although States have responsibility for regulation of certain hunting and 

fishing, the federal land agencies are responsible for the natural resources and habitats that support wildlife populations. The federal land agencies must assess, evaluate and authorize (permit) the use activity when public land resources are being 

used, regardless of the type of use activity including filming, energy or mineral development, right of ways, range or grazing uses, commercial or competitive recreation activities and other land uses. 

Question 12. If Congress does develop a small film crew permit program, are both 

Departments willing to share the receipts from the program with State Fish and 

Game Departments for those permit fees collected related to hunting or fishing activities? 

Answer. Because the filming takes place on federal lands, the federal land management agencies, including BLM, NPS and FWS, with responsibility for protecting 

those land resources appropriately should retain any fees collected. This will cover 

costs for managing filming on federal lands and will provide a fair return to the 

American taxpayer for the use of those resources, allowing these fees to be reinvested in conservation of those resources for future generations. 

RESPONSES OF FAYE KRUEGER TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

S. 1241

The Administration’s testimony indicates that the land management agencies 

should be allowed to continue permitting and charging land use fees for any commercial film crew of any size. That policy includes individuals filming recreational 

trips to public land and amateur filmmakers entering contests. It also includes educational videos and those made by non-profit organizations. These individual 

filmmakers are impacting the public lands no more than any other hiker, biker or 

skier. Yet, the agencies are charging exorbitant fees and requiring a lengthy permit 

process. Other individual public lands users do not face the same kind of permitting 

and fee structure. 

Question 1a. It seems to me that this policy is difficult to apply fairly. Does the 

Forest Service intend to apply this same standard to other individual users? For example, would an amateur photographer have to pay for permitting and land use? 

Answer. The statues governing commercial filming (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) and 36 

CFR 251.50(c)(2) require a permit and permit fee for still photography that involves 

the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural 

resources or administrative facilities; takes place at a location where members of 

the public generally are not allowed; or takes place at a location where the Forest 

Service is likely to incur additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still 

photography. Amateur photographers do not need to obtain a permit or pay a permit 

fee to take still photographs as long as none of these criteria applies. 

Question 1b. Would a non-profit organization leading educational hikes for a fee 

be charged per student? 

Answer. Per 36 CFR 251.51, leading hikes for a fee would be classified as outfitting and guiding, not commercial filming. Per 36 CFR 251.50(a) and 251.57(a) and 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, chapters 30 and 40, outfitting and guiding 

requires a permit and a permit fee. If the activity involves 75 or more people, a free 

noncommercial group use permit would be required, per 36 CFR 251.50(c)(1). 

Question 1c. Does the Administration intend to charge the authors of trail guide 

books for land use? 

Answer. Authors of trail guide books about National Forest System lands do not 

have to obtain a permit or pay a permit fee. Photographers who take pictures on 

National Forest System lands for trail guide books do not need to obtain a permit 

or pay a permit fee as long as none of the criteria listed in the response to question 

1a applies. 

Question 2. The Rainbow Gathering that took place near Pinedale, Wyoming in 

2008 created significant impacts to U.S. Forest Service land. Please explain the land 

use fee charged to that organization. Please also provide the fees charged to the 

group for 2009 and the permitting process and fee planned for 2010. 

Answer. A permit is required for noncommercial group uses (36 CFR 251.50(c)(1)). 

Noncommercial group uses are gatherings on National Forest System lands that involve 75 or more people where no entry or participation fee is charged and where 

the primary purpose is not the sale of a good or service (36 CFR 251.51). Per 36 
37 

CFR 251.57(d), no fee may be charged for a noncommercial group use permit 

(NCGUP). National Rainbow Family gatherings like the 2008 Pinedale, Wyoming, 

event and the 2009 Santa Fe, New Mexico, event are noncommercial group uses. 

With respect to the permit requirement, in 2007 and 2008 the Forest Service managed the national Rainbow Family gathering with an operating plan in lieu of a permit to test the feasibility of an alternative method to obtain voluntary compliance 

with resource requirements from the Rainbow Family. In 2009, the responsible official issued an NCGUP for the Rainbow Family gathering held in the Santa Fe National Forest. The establishment of cooperative relationships between the Forest 

Service and Rainbow Family gatherers led to both execution of the permit and development of an operating plan. 

For the 2010 national Rainbow Family gathering held in the Allegheny National 

Forest, the responsible federal official worked with gathering participants on how 

to meet the mutual objectives of having a safe, healthy, gathering with mitigation 

of resource impacts. Discussions included execution of an NCGUP as well as the use 

of a mutually agreed upon operating plan. Following several days of discussions, the 

responsible official, pursuant to their delegated authority, approved a mutually 

agreed upon operating plan containing sufficient standards to ensure that the foregoing objectives were met. The establishment of a positive relationship for the 2010 

national Rainbow Family gathering resulted in all the objectives being met by participants. These objectives continue to be met during cleanup and rehabilitation of 

the gathering site. 

Question 3. Over the past five years, what is the average land use fee charged 

for film crews of five persons or less permitted on the National Forest System? 

Answer. For still photography, depending on the location, the land use fee for a 

crew of five persons or less ranges from $50 to $132 per day, and from $150 to $193 

per day for commercial filming, depending on the location. Most Forest Service regions developed their fee schedules in the early 1990s and have not updated the fees 

for inflation. 

Question 4. Over the past five years, what is the average time required for the 

processing of each permit for film crews of five persons or less on the National Forest System? 

Answer. Regardless of the size of the crew, a still photography or commercial filming permit generally can be issued in five days if the proposed activity is consistent 

with applicable Forest Service directives and the Forest Service has all the required 

information from the applicant. We recommend that an applicant contact the affected administrative unit at least ten days prior to the proposed activity to facilitate processing of a proposal. 

RESPONSES OF FAYE KRUEGER TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

S. 1241

Question 5a. You have testified that the Forest Service and DOI agencies should 

be allowed to continue permitting and charging land use fees for commercial film 

crews of any size. Does the Forest Service intend to apply this same standard to 

other individual users? For example, would an amateur photographer have to pay 

for permitting and land use, if they enter a photo a contest or get paid for a copy 

of a photo? 

Answer. The statues governing commercial filming (16 U.S.C. 460l-6d) and 36 

CFR 251.50(c)(2) require a permit and permit fee for still photography that involves 

the use of models, sets, or props that are not a part of the site’s natural or cultural 

resources or administrative facilities; takes place at a location where members of 

the public generally are not allowed; or takes place at a location where the Forest 

Service is likely to incur additional administrative costs as a direct result of the still 

photography. Amateur photographers do not need to obtain a permit or pay a permit 

fee to take still photographs as long as none of these criteria applies. 

Question 5b. Would a non-profit organization leading educational hikes be charged 

per student? 

Answer. Per 36 CFR 251.51, leading hikes for a fee would be classified as outfitting and guiding, not commercial filming. Per 36 CFR 251.50(a) and 251.57(a) and 

Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11, chapters 30 and 40, outfitting and guiding 

requires a permit and a permit fee. If the activity involves 75 or more people, a free 

noncommercial group use permit would be required, per 36 CFR 251.50(c)(1). 

Question 5c. Does the Forest Service intend to charge the authors of trail guides 

for land use? 

Answer. Authors of trail guide books about National Forest System lands do not 

have to obtain a permit or pay a permit fee. Photographers who take pictures on 
38 

National Forest System lands for trail guide books do not need to obtain a permit 

or pay a permit fee as long as none of the criteria listed in the response to question 

1a applies. 

Question 6. The Rainbow Gatherings all take place on federal lands and there are 

vendors who attend those gatherings who sell products at the gatherings. Using the 

logic provided in your testimony on small film crews, when will the Departments 

begin to charge the rainbow people or the vendors who attend those events a user 

fee? 

Answer. A permit is required for noncommercial group uses (36 CFR 251.50(c)(1)). 

Noncommercial group uses are gatherings on National Forest System lands that involve 75 or more people where no entry or participation fee is charged and where 

the primary purpose is not the sale of a good or service (36 CFR 251.51). Per 36 

CFR 251.57(d), no fee may be charged for a noncommercial group use permit 

(NCGUP). National Rainbow Family gatherings like the 2008 Pinedale, Wyoming, 

event and the 2009 Santa Fe, New Mexico, event are noncommercial group uses. 

With respect to the permit requirement, in 2007 and 2008 the Forest Service managed the national Rainbow Family gathering with an operating plan in lieu of a permit to test the feasibility of an alternative method to obtain voluntary compliance 

with resource requirements from the Rainbow Family. In 2009, the responsible official issued an NCGUP for the Rainbow Family gathering held in the Santa Fe National Forest. The establishment of cooperative relationships between the Forest 

Service and Rainbow Family gatherers led to both execution of the permit and development of an operating plan. 

For the 2010 national Rainbow Family gathering held in the Allegheny National 

Forest, the responsible federal official worked with gathering participants on how 

to meet the mutual objectives of having a safe, healthy, gathering with mitigation 

of resource impacts. Discussions included execution of an NCGUP as well as the use 

of a mutually agreed upon operating plan. Following several days of discussions, the 

responsible official, pursuant to their delegated authority, approved a mutually 

agreed upon operating plan containing sufficient standards to ensure that the foregoing objectives were met. The establishment of a positive relationship for the 2010 

national Rainbow Family gathering resulted in all the objectives being met by participants. These objectives continue to be met during cleanup and rehabilitation of 

the gathering site. 

Question 7. Other organizations advertise in environmental magazines to bring 

people to federal lands without permits and sell these tours to individuals, thus 

these activities are very likely commercial ventures. For example, you can find a 

good number of advertisements in the Sierra Club Magazine each issue. Some are 

even Sierra Club organized events. 

Using the logic of your testimony on small film crews, when are your departments 

going to begin charging groups organized through such advertisements a fee to attend these hikes on Federal lands? 

Answer. Per 36 CFR 251.51, leading hikes for a fee would be classified as outfitting and guiding, not commercial filming. Per 36 CFR 251.50(a) and 251.57(a) and 

Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, chapters 30 and 40, outfitting and guiding requires a permit and a permit fee. The activity would not require a permit unless 

the activity involved 75 or more people, in which case a free noncommercial group 

use permit would be required, per 36 CFR 251.50(c)(1). 

Question 8. You indicated the agencies need to be able to recoup their costs; 

please provide the Committee with a detailed lists of the costs by forest (for the Forest Service) or state (for the BLM), or park (for the Park Service) for each of the 

last 5 years for administering these film crew permits? 

Answer. The table below lists the detailed costs by forest. Please note that the 

numbers in parenthesis represent negative values. Our budgeting structure displays 

costs charged against other accounts instead of incurred, as negative values. For example if a large permit was administered across two forests for one project, one forest would maintain the account. Also note that some of the expenses listed under 

travel and vehicles, while small value are accurate. During multipurpose trips, proportions of the expenses are charged against each activity which results in which 

results in small amounts of funds being charged for this activity. 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Question 9. Please also provide an estimate of the total FTE’s utilized to administer these permits by forest, BLM district, or national park for each of the last five 

years? 

Answer. The amounts of time spent administering permits by Forest Service Staff 

are very small and are usually performed as a collateral duty. As such we have 

rolled up the data to display total full time equivalents (FTEs) per year. The table 

provided for the previous question (#8) displays salary expenditures for each of the 

National Forests that have processed commercial film permits. 
43 

FOREST SERVICE FTEs FOR COMMERCIAL FILMING AND STILL 

PHOTOGRAPHY PERMITS1

Fiscal Year Administrative Expenditure in $ FTEs 

2009 318,550 3.0 

2008 306,763 3.0 

2007 292,454 2.5 

2006 139,756 1.0 

2005 182,574 1.5 

1From Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) Performance and Accountability 

System (PAS) actual transaction register data for the listed fiscal years. 

Question 10. For the BLM, the Forest Service, and US Fish & Wildlife Service 

where hunting or fishing is allowed: 

The states have the responsibility for hunting and fishing licensing and management of those recreationists. If a hunter and one other person film a hunting or fishing trip would they fall under the commercial filming permit program? 

Answer. If the person accompanying the hunter is providing outfitting or guiding 

services, that person would have to have an outfitting and guiding permit and pay 

a fee for that permit (36 CFR 251.51 and FSH 2709.11, ch. 30 and 40). If the film 

of the trip is part of the services authorized by the outfitting and guiding permit 

(e.g., if the outfitter and guide is filming the trip to provide a memento to the client), no commercial filming permit would be required. However, if the film of the 

trip is not part of the authorized outfitting and guiding services and the filming involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, 

or the use of actors, models, sets, or props, unless the filming is associated with 

broadcasting breaking news, authorization of the filming would be required (16 

U.S.C. 460l-6d; 36 CFR 251.51), either in the outfitting and guiding permit or a separate commercial filming permit. For example, authorization of the filming would 

be required if the outfitter and guide has agreed to allow an independent film company to create a film of the trip for sale. 

If the person accompanying the hunter is not providing outfitting and guiding 

services, no outfitting and guiding permit would be required. However, a commercial 

filming permit would be required if the filming involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, 

or props, unless the filming is associated with broadcasting breaking news (36 CFR 

251.51). 

Question 11. If a family is on a lake on federal lands and the father videos one 

of his children fishing: would that fall under the commercial filming permit program? 

Answer. No. A commercial filming permit would not be required for a videotape 

made by a father of his child fishing because the filming does not involve the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props. 

Question 12. In either event described above: if either the hunter or the family 

happened to capture a trophy animal or fish on film or video and then sold the footage to one of the many outdoor shows, would that fall within the commercial filming 

permit program? 

Answer. A commercial filming permit is required if the filming involves creation 

of a product for sale. If a film is sold, there is a presumption that it was created 

for that purpose. 

Question 13. How does your agency deal with video taken by private individuals 

of events on public lands that then get shown on TV? 

Answer. A commercial filming permit is required if the filming involves the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props, unless the filming is associated with broadcasting breaking news. 

Question 14. Does either Department charge its employees a permit fee for taking 

video that then gets viewed on a public TV station or on the Internet—say for instance video from rainbow gatherings, or wildfires? Why not? 

Answer. Forest Service employees filming on National Forest System lands outside the scope of their official duties have to obtain a commercial filming permit and 

pay a permit fee if the filming involves the advertisement of a product or service, 
44 

the creation of a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props, unless 

the filming is associated with broadcasting breaking news. Forest Service employees 

filming on National Forest System lands within the scope of their official duties do 

not have to obtain a commercial filming permit and pay a permit fee because the 

filming does not involve the advertisement of a product or service, the creation of 

a product for sale, or the use of actors, models, sets, or props. 

Question 15. Since the states have responsibility for the regulation of hunting and 

fishing why should Congress allow the federal land management agencies to regulate filming on federal lands done in conjunction with hunting or fishing? 

Answer. Federal land management agencies like the Forest Service are responsible for addressing resource protection and public safety on the lands they manage. 

This responsibility is reflected in 16 U.S.C. 460l-6d, which authorizes the Forest 

Service to regulate commercial filming on National Forest System lands, including 

commercial filming of hunting and fishing. The Forest Service must ensure that proposed commercial filming meets the evaluation criteria for special use proposals in 

36 CFR 251.54(e), including consistency with applicable law and the applicable land 

management plan. As stated in the response to question 9, if a film of an outfitted 

and guided hunting or fishing trip is part of the services authorized by the outfitting 

and guiding permit (e.g., if the outfitter and guide is filming the trip to provide a 

memento to clients), no commercial filming permit is required. 

Question 16. If Congress does develop a small film crew permit program, are both 

Departments willing to share the receipts from the program with State Fish and 

Game Departments for those permit fees collected related to hunting or fishing activities? 

Answer. As stated in the response to question 14, the federal land management 

agencies have authorities and responsibilities under federal law that are independent of the authorities and responsibilities of states to regulate hunting and fishing. Congress has directed that land use fee revenues for all commercial filming and 

still photography permits, regardless of the size of the crew involved, be retained 

and spent by the federal land management agencies that collect them for use and 

protection of federal lands. 

S. 1571 AND H.R. 1043

Question 1. In previous Congresses the Forest Service and the Department have 

testified against this proposal pointing to a finding that it was not in the public interest. Today, you have reversed course and are now saying that you can support 

the proposal. 

Some on your staff have indicated the reversal has to do with a Forest Supervisor, 

who unbeknownst to the Washington D.C. office, suggested support for the proposal 

if Solano County would acquire some lands and trade them to the Forest Service. 

Is it now the position of the Administration that the previous 2006 analysis was 

flawed? If so, what were the specific flaws? 

Answer. No, the Department’s position is that the Feasibility Analysis for the Proposed Fouts Springs Land Exchange between Solano County and the Mendocino National Forest, prepared in 2006, is not flawed. 

Question 2. Will you provide the Committee with a copy of that analysis from 

2006 which indicated the exchange was not in the public interest, along with any 

subsequent white papers or analysis describing the reversal in attitude related to 

the proposed exchange? 

Answer. Attached is a copy of the 2006 Feasibility analysis, as requested. There 

are no subsequent white papers or analysis describing the change of Administration 

Position. The change occurred as a result of discussion between the Regional Office, 

Forest and Washington Office. 

S. 2762

Question 1. This bill has two interesting provisions that I would like to better understand and a significant amount of private lands that are the result of old mining 

claims. 

In the proposed Sheep Mountain Special Management area—the agency is directed to manage its wilderness values and to allow heli-skiing and other motorized 

activities to continue at current levels—but then it directs the area gain a big wilderness designation when those ‘‘non-conforming’’ activities have ended. 

Am I correct that commercial helicopter skiing is not compatible with a Wilderness designation? 

Answer. Yes. Landing of helicopters, including dropping off supplies or persons is 

prohibited in National Forest Wilderness by CFR (36 CFR 261.18). 
45 

Question 2. Given the direction to convert the area to wilderness when the Secretary of Agriculture certifies these non-conforming activities have ended; when will 

the Secretary be outlawing these activities in the Sheep Mountain Special Management area? 

Answer. There are no current plans to terminate the non-conforming uses specified in the Act. We anticipate the heliskiing permit would terminate when demand 

for the use diminished to the point that the permit was no longer economically viable and the holder did not want to continue and there was not another qualified 

operator. Official ‘‘termination’’ for the purposes of this Act designating the area as 

wilderness would include a published notice in the Federal Register. 

Question 3. Wouldn’t it be better to manage the area for back country recreation 

and to allow the motorized activity to continue? 

Answer. Under our current Forest Plans for the San Juan and Grand MesaUncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) and preliminary revised Forest Plans, we would manage the area for backcountry recreation and allow the 

heliskiing permit to continue. As detailed in our written testimony, we recommend 

that this area be managed as a special management area and not be designated wilderness until the non-conforming use of permitted helicopter landings for recreation 

ceases. Question 4. Both in the Whitehouse East Addition and in the Sheep Mountain 

Special Management Area there are a large number of parcels of private property. 

If these areas are made into wilderness, how will the Forest Service assure reasonable access to those private parcels? 

Answer. Law (16 USC 3210) and regulation (36 CFR 251 Subpart D) require the 

agency to provide such access to nonfederally owned land as the Secretary deems 

adequate to secure to the owner the reasonable use and enjoyment of the non-Federal land. Authorized access will vary by parcel reflecting the customary means of 

access used for similarly-situated non-Federal land, and the combination of routes 

and modes of travel which will cause the least lasting impact on the wilderness but 

which will permit the reasonable use of the non-Federal land. 

Question 5. Will you allow the land owners to continue to access their lands with 

jeeps or ATV’s, if that is how they access them now? 

Answer. If a landowner is now accessing their land with an ATV, Jeep or other 

motorized vehicle on an open Forest Service system road or trail, and the road or 

trail was closed to public motorized use by Wilderness legislation, the landowner 

would need to apply for a special use permit to continue using that method of access. The Forest Service could grant the special use permit to the landowner for 

ATV, jeep or other motorized vehicle use to travel to their property if the motor vehicle use was determined to permit reasonable use of the non-Federal land. Some 

private property owners have obtained easements under the Federal Land Policy 

Management Act (FLPMA), which allows for motorized use on roads constructed in 

the FLPMA easement. The Forest Service would work with the holders of the easements to protect Wilderness character and at the same time assure that the reasonable enjoyment and use of the private property would continue. 

Question 6. Will you allow them to access them by helicopter if that is the mode 

of transportation they have used in the past? 

Answer. A helicopter could be one of the transportation modes for travelling to 

their private lands. Landing of helicopters is prohibited in Wilderness, but if the 

landowner is landing on their own private land, a permit from the Forest Service 

would not be required. Where Wilderness is designated, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued an aviation advisory for pilots to maintain a 2,000 

foot above-ground-level (AGL) flight plan. The Forest Service would make the landowners aware of that advisory, but it does not have regulatory authority over airspace or on private land. 

Question 7. Considering that the ‘‘hand of man’’ impacted these lands during previous mining booms, do these proposed areas fit the Forest Service’s typical description of Wilderness? 

Answer. While historic mining activities have affected the landscape, often many 

of the wilderness characteristics are still present. The Forest Service inventory criteria for potential wilderness may include evidence of historic mining. Typically the 

activity would have occurred over 50+ years ago, and would not include significant 

mineral activity such as prospecting with mechanical or motorized earthmoving 

equipment. 

Question 8. Were these areas recommended for wilderness in current and previous 

forest plans? 

Answer. The GMUG’s Forest Plan, completed in 1983, did not recommend any 

areas for wilderness. The GMUG developed a preliminary proposed action in 2008 

under the 2005 Planning Rule. That preliminary proposed action included lands pro-
46 

posed for wilderness. Some of the lands proposed as wilderness in HR 3914 were 

proposed for wilderness in the 2008 Forest Plan revision efforts. 

The Forest Plan for the San Juan National Forest, completed in 1983, did not recommend the San Miguel Roadless Area (which included the Sheep Mountain area) 

for wilderness; it did recognize the wilderness character of the high alpine areas in 

the Sheep Mountain area. The management emphasis is semi-primitive non-motorized recreation. 

The Draft Forest Plan for the San Juan NF (DEIS, 2007, being completed under 

the 1982 Planning Rule) does not recommend San Juan NF portion of the Sheep 

Mountain area as wilderness, but proposes to allocate it to semi-primitive non-motorized. 
(47) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

U.S. SENATE, 

Washington, DC, April 28, 2010. 

Hon. RON WYDEN, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public 

Lands and Forests, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. JOHN BARRASSO, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on 

Public Lands and Forests, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN WYDEN, RANKING MEMBER BARRASSO, AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS: As the Senate leaders of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus, we want to 

thank you for having a hearing on S. 1241 and express our support for this legislation that directs the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to 

require a permit and assess an annual fee of S200 for commercial filming activities 

or similar projects on federal lands and waterways administered by the Secretary 

for any film crew of five persons or fewer. In addition, for those individuals and others that would hold such a permit, it would prohibit assessing any additional fee 

for commercial filming activities and similar projects that occur in those areas. 

While we certainly understand the need to implement controls to limit the potential damage that can be caused by large film crews, the majority of filming and still 

photography that lakes place on federal lands and waterways has no deleterious impacts on the landscape, the people who visit them, or the fish and wildlife that reside on them. S. 1241 addresses the inequities, enforcement and process confusion 

as well as the severe burden placed on individual journalists or small film crews 

that result from the current regulations. 

Bearing in mind that the leading reason that active sportsmen become former 

sportsmen is that they can no longer find places to hunt and fish, television has 

become an important, even primary, means for educating them about the remaining 

opportunities to access hunting and fishing spots. These individuals often gel this 

information from programs produced by individual journalists or small film crews. 

These programs are tailored to an audience who actively use public lands and waterways for pursuits like hunting and fishing that are of supreme importance to the 

future conservation of these lands. 

We thank you for taking the time to hold a hearing on this legislation and understand our concerns. We invite you to contact us for any additional information or 

assistance in moving this legislation forward. 

Sincerely, 

BEN NELSON, 

Chair, Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. 

MIKE CRAPO, 

Chair, Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. 

JON TESTER, 

Vice-Chair, CSC. 

JOHN THUNE, 

Vice-Chair, CSC. 

STATEMENT OF N. GUY EASTMAN, PUBLISHER, EASTMANS’ PUBLISHING, INC. 

This law has caused and cost our company to scale down our workforce and cut 

back our over-all expenditures which has had a direct impact on both our local economy as well as our National economy. 
48 

* Other undersigned groups: American Sportfishing Association, Archery Trade Association, 

Bass Pro Shops, Berkley Conservation Institute, Boone and Crockett Club, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Campfire Club of America, Catch—A—Dream Foundation, Congressional 

Sportsmen’s Foundation, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, Mule Deer Foundation, National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports 

Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, North American Bear Foundation, North American Grouse Partnership, Pheasants Forever, Pure Fishing, Quality Deer Management Association, Quail Forever, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Shimano American Corp., Texas Wildlife Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, Whitetails Unlimited, Wild Sheep Foundation, and 

Wildlife Forever. 

If this law could be changed it would free our small business up to explore and 

promote wild places and public spaces out West for the dedicated DIY public outdoorsman/taxpayer/voter. This will have a direct impact on the local economies and 

businesses in the hard to reach and much forgotten small towns in the Western 

United States. 

Countries like Canada and New Zealand actually reimburse and incentivize film 

crews to come and promote the hunting and fishing in their regions in order to boost 

their local tourism economies in the hard to reach and otherwise much forgotten regions of their countries. 

It has always been a mystery to me why in the world our Government, who is 

supposed to be so small business friendly and based in the First Amendment would 

make it so difficult, sometimes even impossible to promote tourism in our own country, own communities, on our OWN public lands and be charged all along the way 

of doing so. 

My grandfather, an outdoor filming pioneer and world class adventurer in this 

business/industry is surely rolling over in his grave at what this seemingly free 

country has become. For the good of our small businesses, our economy, our small 

communities and our First Amendment right, see to it that this bill is passed. 

I’m confident the future revenues from this bill will far exceed what is currently 

in place under the very misleading and confusing fee structure that our Government 

currently has in place. Thank you for the time. 

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY* 

On behalf of the millions of hunters and anglers, fish and wildlife professionals, 

and fish and wildlife businesses, we want to thank you for having a hearing on S. 

1241. The undersigned groups express our support for this legislation that will direct the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to require annual permits and 

assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal lands and waterways 

for film crews of 5 persons or fewer. 

The need for this legislation arose from concerns about the recently proposed rules 

for filming and photographing on federal lands and waterways. While we certainly 

understand the need to implement controls to limit the potential damage that can 

be caused by large film crews, the majority of filming and still photography that 

takes place on federal lands and waterways has no deleterious impacts on the landscape, the people who visit them, or the fish and wildlife that reside on them. In 

fact, many of our most treasured public lands, such as Yellowstone and Yosemite 

National Parks, would never have been set aside for the enjoyment of millions of 

citizens had their unique resources not been photographed and disseminated to the 

American public. 

Several of the undersigned organizations sponsor or are major contributors to televised hunting and fishing programs that air on a variety of popular and widely disseminated networks. These programs, which would be seriously affected by the 

newly proposed rules, reach millions of American people each week with messages 

that celebrate America’s outdoor heritage, its public lands, and our shared fish and 

wildlife resources. 

These programs are tailored to an audience who actively use public lands and waterways for pursuits like hunting and fishing that are of supreme importance to the 

future conservation of these lands. Our viewers fuel state fish and wildlife budgets 

through license sales and they boost the local economies that depend on seasonal 

influxes of hunters and anglers. Bearing in mind that the leading reason that active 

sportsmen become former sportsmen is that they can no longer find places to hunt 

and fish, television has become an important, even primary, means for educating 

them about the remaining opportunities to access hunting and fishing spots. 

Production schedules and budgets for producing these programs are both characteristically tight. Even under the current rules, a substantial amount of time and 
49 

* Other undersigned groups: American Society of Media Photographers, National Shooting 

Sports Foundation, U.S. Sportment’s Alliance, North American Media Group, Inc., Orion multimedia, new York State Outdoor Writers Association, and Eastmans’ Publishing, Inc. 

money is spent procuring necessary permits and permissions. We fear that these 

newly proposed standards will cause significant increases in both time and money 

to bring these programs to air. In some cases, these increases may cause producers 

to focus less time and attention on public lands. In others, the newly proposed 

standards may cause producers to avoid public lands entirely. 

We thank you for taking the time to hold a hearing on this legislation and understand our concerns. We invite you to contact us for any additional information or 

assistance in moving this legislation forward. 

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, 

INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION, 

Washington, DC, April 23, 2010. 

Hon. JAMES R. INHOFE, 

453 Russell Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR INHOFE: The National Rifle Association supports S. 1241, which 

would amend PL 106206 by creating a separate permit and fee structure for small 

film crews using federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. 

The NRA supports the concept of payment for the commercial use of a public benefit, such as federal lands, in order to off set management costs to provide such use. 

However, an Administration proposal would set fee and permit rates at such a level 

to be unaffordable to sportsmen’s organizations that require film crews to provide 

information to their members about hunting and fishing opportunities on federal 

lands. Your legislation, S. 1241, will ease that financial burden by requiring a fee 

and permit structure that is commensurate with the level of impact that small film 

crews actually have on the landscape. 

This legislation is vitally important to the NRA, as our film crews provide photographs and video for a host of NRA education outlets including the American Hunter and American Rifleman magazines; the American Hunter, American Rifleman, 

and American Guardian television shows; our websites; and our webehannel news 

program. To pay permits and fees at the same rates that will be applied to commercial filming on federal lands is onerous financially to non-profit organizations such 

as the NRA. Combined with the costs in time and staff to obtain the required permits, the expense will undermine our ability to reach our members with high quality educational information in a timely manner. 

The NRA, along with other national hunting and wildlife conservation organizations and all fifty state fish and wildlife agencies, are developing and implementing 

programs to recruit and retain new hunters and keep our older hunters in the field. 

The reasons most often given by hunters for not continuing to hunt is the loss of 

access and the lack of information about where to hunt. Our television shows, magazines, and news programs are designed to create interesting and informative stories 

that will ignite interest in hunting, rekindle former interest, and sustain and build 

on the excitement that present day hunters have for going afield. It is the visuals 

that attract today’s viewers and readers to hunting stories and outdoor programs. 

Thus, filming has become an essential component of delivering information to current and future generations of American hunters. 

The NRA very much appreciates the importance that S. 1241 places on communicating with America’s hunters and anglers by requiring a separate fee structure 

for small film crews. 

Sincerely, 

CHRIS W. COX, 

Executive Director. 

STATEMENT OF THE PROFESSIONAL OUTDOOR MEDIA ASSOCIATION,* ON S. 1241 

The undersigned stand in support of S. 1241, to amend Public Law 106-206 to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to require annual 

permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal land for 

film crews of five persons or fewer. 

The Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA) represents more than 350 

individual traditional outdoor sports journalists and 140 companies, conservation as-
50 

sociations and media outlets that produce news, editorial and educational content 

on/about public-lands issues, recreation, and land use. POMA members reach tens 

of millions of Americans daily through broadcast, print, and digital content. 

Joining POMA in support of S. 1241 and in providing testimony before this committee are several national and state media organizations, publishing/broadcasting 

entities, conservation and traditional outdoor sports trade organizations, small 

media businesses and individual journalists. Included in those supporting S. 1241 

are the American Society of Media Photographers, National Shooting Sports Foundation and U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. 

Collectively, the undersigned and those providing additional testimony, represent 

thousands of journalists, the outdoor industry and the tens of millions of Americans 

who depend upon these organizations, businesses and individual journalists for information, news, and educational content on/about our public lands and the culturally important activities occurring there. 

Although we do not believe, based on First Amendment provisions, any fees 

should be charged to journalists reporting on public-lands issues, land use, or recreational activities thereon, S. 1241 addresses the inequities, enforcement and process confusion as well as the severe burden placed on individual journalists/small 

film crews that result from the current regulations. 

Current regulations do not support the mission of the Department of the Interior 

(DOI), severely penalize working journalists, and are contrary to the freedoms outlined in the First Amendment. 

• DOI’s mission is to sustain, conserve, and provide access to our natural resources. Traditional outdoor media, individual still photographers and 

videographers, and small film crews play a critical role in disseminating the 

message of conservation and provide vicarious access to public lands to our citizens. 

• Excessive land-use fees are regressive in nature, discourage or impede the media’s access to public lands and are contrary to DOI’s mission. 

• The definitions of news coverage and commercial filming in the current rules 

are vague and restrictive. The rules allow DOI agencies to classify as ‘‘commercial filming’’ activities which are clearly news coverage, such as news documentaries, coverage of resource management issues and public land activities. 

• A distinction should be drawn between large Hollywood-style location shoots 

and traditional journalists—photographers and videographers—with an exemption for small crews and photographers. Currently, some agencies charge the 

same land-use fee for one videographer as is charged for a crew of up to 29. 

• Interpretation of the current regulations is left to individual public-land employees, resulting in vast irregularity in enforcement, permitting procedures, and 

fee amounts charged photographers. 

• Journalists are suffering harm and the media’s ability to cover public lands and 

public-lands issues effected. Evidence of harm is provided in Exhibit A to this 

letter. 

• Americans are being denied access to information about public lands as a result 

of media refusal to cover public land issues and activities because of restrictive 

fees. 

While we urge continuing discussion and action, based on constitutional issues, 

regarding the elimination of fees charged to journalists reporting on/about public 

lands, we support S. 1241 as a positive step forward. 

S. 1241 resolves or lessens the severity of the issues outlined herein. It does so 

simply, while ensuring the integrity of public lands, access for use by the public and 

individual journalists, and small film crews’ more affordable access. Additionally, 

the bill maintains the ability of land units to regulate large, non-journalistic productions. 

We urge the committee to bring this legislation forward—to allow journalists to 

freely report on/about our public lands and the culturally important activities occurring there. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID P. TRUST, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PROFESSIONAL

PHOTOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA, ALLIANCE OF VISUAL ARTISTS, ON S. 1241 

Our purpose for writing is to offer comments and air concerns with regard to the 

Subcommittee’s consideration of S. 1241, an amendment to Public Law 106-206 

which directs the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to require 
51 

annual permits and assess annual fees for commercial filming activities on Federal 

land for film crews of 5 persons or fewer. 

Professional Photographers of America (PPA) is joined in these comments by the 

Alliance of Visual Artists (AVA), which, in addition to PPA, includes the Society of 

Sport and Event Photographers, Commercial Photographers International, Evidence 

Photographers International Council the Student Photographic Society, and the 

Stock Artists Alliance. Together with our state and local affiliates, AVA represents 

some 42,000 photographers and their families. PPA is the oldest and largest trade 

association for professional photographers with members engaged in all facets of 

photography and imaging. 

On behalf of our members, we appreciate this opportunity to offer the Subcommittee written comments on this bill and the existing permit structure on the 

assumption that once it becomes law its application may extend beyond ‘‘commercial 

filming activities’’. 

Our customer service center regularly receives telephone calls and e-mails from 

photographers regarding the permit requirements imposed by Federal land management entities. We believe there is a need to both streamline and clarify the requirements for photography permits. If worded correct, this bill, or some version of it, 

may reduce the confusion within the photographic community and help ensure photographers are better able to abide by Federal permit regulations. 

We recognize that assigning permits and requesting payment of applicable fees 

may be necessary for Federal lands to uphold their mission; reduce the abuse of natural resources; and ensure fair and equitable access to highly desirable locations for 

those with competing interests. We must however, express our concern with regard 

to the existing permit process as a potentially cost-prohibitive practice to professional photographers. 

As it stands, the requirements for acquiring a permit (both fees and wait times), 

in addition to accounting for cost recovery fees, has the potential to greatly impact 

a photographer’s bottom line. The creation of an annual permit as proposed by S. 

1241 could prove to be an effective way for professional photographers to ensure 

they are able to legally create images on Federal land. 

It is important for the Subcommittee to note that professional photographers are 

among the smallest of small business owners. The average photographer works 50 

hours a week while earning just $35,000 a year. Most are ‘‘mom and pop shops’’ 

with 1-3 employees. To ensure they are able to earn even this modest salary, they 

must expertly manage their costs of doing business which means turning away assignments that represent additional, and possibly unpredictable, expenses. 

For example, a single professional photographer creating a family portrait is likely to work with a minimal amount of equipment while shooting in areas already 

open to the general public. In our opinion, this type of work simply cannot be equated with a commercial film crew creating a motion picture, or other intensive production, requiring extensive set building, and a significant number of crew members. 

To this end, the option of applying for an annual permit which includes a reasonable 

fee would protect the public’s interests while ensuring photographers can better satisfy their clients’ needs. 

If the committee feels a permit must be required, we strongly urge the consideration of an annual permit which would reduce time requirements and reduce costs 

for both photographers and the consuming public. 

The above said, we presume it is not the intent of S. 1241 to alter the overall 

definition of ‘‘commercial’’ as it applies to still photography under PL 106-206. The 

law currently states the mere fact that still photography is ‘‘commercial’’ in some 

sense, shall not be sufficient to allow the land-management agency to prohibit it or 

require fees or permits for it to take place. It instead defines the need for a permit 

based on the use of models, sets, or props. 

Changing the definition of ‘‘commercial’’ could prove to be a source of confusion 

to the individual professional photographer entering Federal lands to create images 

for selfassignment or capture landscapes for a client. These photographers are likely 

to behave no differently than the average visitor, the sole distinguishing factor being 

their professional quality camera (a distinction that is blurred by the ever increasing availability of high quality photography equipment by the public). In fact, those 

photographers creating works for their portfolio may not know they have created an 

image they can use ‘‘commercially’’ until they return to their studio to upload the 

memory card or develop their film. 

Of course, photographers determining their need for a permit based on their use 

of models, sets, or props are often left bewildered and potentially open to significant 

fines if they err. A photographer may not reasonably assume that capturing a family 

portrait for personal use is engaging in a shoot featuring ‘‘models’’ or a Boy Scout 

troop holding a banner would constitute the use of ‘‘props’’. 
52 

The same has the potential to occur as a result of the addition of the word ‘‘crew’’ 

in determining the need for a permit. S. 1241 states the term ‘‘‘film crew’ includes 

all persons present on Federal land under the Secretary’s jurisdiction who are associated with the production of a certain film.’’ Applying this model to a photographic 

shoot, a photographer with clients may easily exceed the 5 person or fewer limit on 

any given session. This could lead to photographers incorrectly applying for annual 

permits or failing to apply for additional permits as required. To this end, it is important for the Subcommittee to consider further defining or otherwise qualifying 

such ambiguities in both the bill and the existing law. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee’s consideration of this bill as a means of making 

the permit guidelines and fee schedules consistent on Federal lands. We hope that 

you will take our comments and concerns into consideration as you move S.1241 

through the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We are happy to supply the 

committee or subcommittee with any information or assistance it may need in moving forward. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTY GEORGE, PRESIDENT, SOCIETY OF ENVIRONMENTAL

JOURNALISTS, ON S. 1241 

The Society of Environmental Journalists welcomes this opportunity to submit 

comments to you on S. 1241 and the regulation by the Departments of Interior and 

Agriculture of commercial filming on public lands. 

It’s an issue that affects journalists—as well as ordinary citizens—in all parts of 

the country. With more than 1,500 members, SEJ is the world’s largest and oldest 

organization of individual working journalists, educators and students covering environmental issues. 

The manner in which the Departments of Interior and Agriculture regulate commercial filming and photography today is arbitrary and contrary to the public’s interest. As a result, the public is deprived of vital insights into the natural splendor 

of its lands and how they are being managed. SEJ believes this problem needs to 

be fixed. 

We believe in accordance with the First Amendment, journalists should generally 

be exempt from having to get permits or pay fees, regardless of the medium in 

which they’re reporting. Many journalists today work in multi-media, meaning they 

may be reporting in some combination of print, audio and visual formats, wielding 

pen or pencil, tape recorder and camcorder or digital camera. 

Thus, we believe that the departments should use the broadest possible definition 

of who is a journalist and of what constitutes news coverage in deciding what filming activities would be exempt from fees and permits. 

We wish S. 1241 was the vehicle to create a workable solution, but sadly it is not. 

While it attempts to standardize federal regulation of commercial filming, it will 

leave the national parks and other federal lands largely inaccessible to many freelance or independent journalists who work in visual media. Their livelihood will be 

impaired, and the public will ultimately be the poorer as a result. 

Congress passed a law in 2000 directing the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to assess fees for commercial filming on public lands. It spelled out a few 

factors to be considered in determining the amount of fees to be charged, and it 

carved out a broad exemption for still photography, unless it involves the use of 

models or unnatural props. In both cases, the law appeared intended to regulate 

large Hollywood-style motion picture productions and advertising photo shoots. 

Yet today, many kinds of commercial filming and still photography are governed 

by a crazy-quilt of guidelines, policies and practices that vary among federal agencies—and even among individual land units managed by the National Park Service. 

Journalists, both free-lance and news staff employees, have repeatedly been caught 

in this regulatory web. In some cases, they have been directed to apply for permits 

and pay fees of $250 a day to film or take still photographs on national park land 

because the stories they were covering were not deemed to be ‘‘breaking news’’. Yet 

many of our most significant environmental stories are slow-moving, such as the decline or recovery of forests or endangered species. 

For instance, in November 2008, a Baltimore newspaper reporter, photographer 

and affiliated television film crew were told to apply for a permit and pay $250 to 

accompany scientists checking on a bat population inside a tunnel on park service 

property. In 2007, a free-lance journalist reporting for public radio was directed to 

apply for a permit and pay a fee before she could record an audio interview with 

a federal biologist about the management of wolves in another national park. 

In both cases, the park service dropped its demands when the journalists objected. 

But the service’s own guidelines and policies appear to allow such fees. 
53 

In 2007, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture proposed a regulation intended to standardize their approach to implementing PL106-206. It proposed to exempt news coverage, but the definition was unworkably vague and restrictive. It allowed agencies to classify as ‘‘commercial filming’’ activities that are clearly news 

coverage, such as news documentaries or ‘‘non-breaking’’ coverage of resource management issues. It also proposed to expand regulation of still photography beyond 

what the law called for, and it even proposed to require permits and fees of audio 

recording, an activity which wasn’t even mentioned in PL 106-206. 

Some media groups—particularly those that focus on portraying hunting, fishing 

and other outdoors activities—have decided to back S.1241, viewing it as an improvement over the current mish-mash of policies and practices. We share their 

quest for a more uniform approach, and have joined with them in the past to argue 

for that. However, we cannot go along with the $200 annual fee called for in S.1241. 

That would pose a hardship for many of our members, especially for free-lance and 

independent photographers, film-makers and videographers. In many cases, the 

filming fee may equal or even exceed whatever the journalist or photographer might 

be paid for his or her work. 

Exceptions to the general exemption for news coverage may arise when photographers or film crews plan to go where the public is not allowed. Beyond that, PL 

106-206 already directs the departments not to allow filming or photography that 

would damage resources or disrupt the public’s enjoyment of them. What more is 

needed? 

There must be a better way. We stand ready to work with you to find it. Whether 

by legislation or regulation, we believe any oversight of commercial filming must respect the First Amendment rights of journalists and the public while ensuring a free 

flow of visual information about the status and management of the public’s lands. 

The public has a right to expect no less. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE SCOTT, ON S. 1241 

I am Steve Scott, an independent television producer from Norman, Oklahoma. 

I am past Chairman of the Board of the Professional Outdoor Media Association, 

and a designated representative to this Committee for the Wild Sheep Foundation, 

Dallas Safari Club, and USA Shooting. I appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony before this Committee. 

The current system of issuing permits and collecting fees for filming on public 

lands has evolved into a system in which federal law is interpreted and administered by DOI and DOA field offices that apply their own standards and criteria before issuing a permit, if they will issue a permit at all. Financial issues notwithstanding, the most important aspect of SB 1241, is that it will standardize the permitting system and its criteria throughout the U.S., and eliminate the harmful arbitrary and capricious enforcement of the current standards by local DOI and DOA 

field personnel. 

The Department of Interior’s mission states, in part, they are to ‘‘protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage.’’ The professional outdoor 

media of this country are one of the Department’s most valuable allies, as we disseminate the message of conservation, and create public awareness to stimulate critical thinking about current issues concerning our public lands. However, the present 

system of inconsistent standards for access and regressive land-use fees has had a 

chilling effect on the reporting and promotion of public land issues, and , in fact, 

has prompted outdoor producers, photographers, and videographers to seek alternative venues to our public lands, including private property, and foreign soil. 

The public land of this nation is just that: public land. It should be available to 

be freely used and enjoyed by its citizens and visitors. But as changing demographics have created a society that is ninety percent urban, the majority of Americans will never have the opportunity to visit a national park or designated wilderness area. However, with the proliferation and specialization of information in this 

country, the outdoor media provides our citizens nearly zero impact access to our 

rich natural heritage, while at the same time, making them aware of issues that 

affect public lands. Outdoor media is the conduit between the pristine and isolated 

wilderness, and an informed electorate, the majority of which will never set foot on 

public lands. Unfortunately, this vicarious access to our shared natural heritage is 

now being greatly restricted, to the detriment of all of our citizens. 

Throughout the public lands systems, well meaning, but misinformed federal employees have taken it upon themselves to ‘‘protect’’ federal lands by severely restricting, and in many cases, banning, commercial filming and photography in their jurisdictions. The de-facto authority of field personnel to decide access, use, and fees for 
54 

commercial activities on public land has resulted in little or no access for filming/ 

photography on public lands, inconsistent fee structures, and a climate of confusion 

regarding the land-use system and the role of outdoor media. This labyrinth of 

standards of the current system has created a tremendous hardship for scores of 

freelance writers, photographers, videographers and producers, myself included. 

When we produce an episode for one of our television series on public lands, it 

takes a great deal of time, planning, and money. Usually, a big game tag must be 

applied for months in advance, with no assurance that tag will be procured. Often, 

there are many more applicants than there are tags, so they are allocated by a 

draw, or lottery, basis. If the tag is obtained, a non-resident hunting license must 

be purchased, the services of a guide/outfitter must be secured, as well as scheduling travel and personnel for the shoot, all of which requires a significant amount 

of monies paid in advance. The shoot is then scheduled on the production calendar 

as one of the thirteen episodes for the upcoming production season. The filming permit is usually applied for within sixty days of the shoot. If at that time, the film 

permit is denied, we are without recourse to appeal, and all that has been invested 

in the pre-production process is for naught. In addition, the episode that would have 

resulted from the shoot that has been denied must be replaced on the production 

schedule; nearly always with a program of lesser interest. 

The previous scenario is not an anticipation of a possible problem in the future. 

The situation is happening now to myself, and other outdoor media members, with 

damaging consequences. 

We have scheduled two hunts in the Washakie Wilderness of the Shoshone National Forest near Cody Wyoming in the fall of 2010. Tags have been applied for 

and obtained. Travel, labor, and guide/outfitter services have been contracted for. 

However, based on a recent pronouncement by Wyoming Forest Service personnel, 

we may now be prohibited from filming these hunts. 

On April 21, 2010, at a meeting of the Cody Country Guide and Outfitters Association, Mr. Bill Oliver, Permit Administrator and Mr. Loren Poppert, Recreational 

Staff Officer, both from the US Forest Service, informed the audience that no film 

permits would be issued in the Washakie Wilderness, and the question would be reviewed in May. 

We have filmed in the Washakie for the past several years, and garnering a film 

permit has never been an issue. Now, for reasons unknown, local Forest Service employees have decided they need to ‘‘review’’ the situation before making a decision. 

The same thing is happening in the Bridger-Teton in Wyoming, in Utah, and on 

countless other public lands throughout the federal system, creating a circumstance 

that is damaging and untenable for a small business like mine. 

A familiar admonition for users of our public lands is ‘‘Leave nothing but footprints. Take nothing but pictures.’’ Considering the outdoor media provides virtually 

zero-impact access to our Nation’s natural resources for millions of Americans, how 

can we reasonably be denied access to our public lands, when in reality, we are providing the Department a vitally important service? SB 1241 will remedy the problems I/we have encountered, by providing a uniform standard for access which is 

both fair and appropriate. 

In addition to the critical issues regarding access, there are also concerns regarding the current fee structure. 

Members of the outdoor media periodically ply their craft on public lands, with 

the intent of earning a living. Thus, by the current standard, the activity is deemed 

commercial, and land-use fees are assessed. Often, however, the activity is anything 

but profitable, as numerous outdoor media projects are undertaken on a speculative 

basis. The freelance writer’s article and photo package detailing the dependency of 

Alaskan bears on the annual salmon run; the wildlife photographer building an inventory of photos for potential inclusion in a stock photo agency’s catalog; the independent television producer, filming a documentary on wolf depredation on 

ungulates in the Yellowstone ecosystem; all commercial activities under the present 

standard, but in the reality of the marketplace, unlikely to generate commercial 

gain. 

An exception to the permit requirement does exist. Media crews covering what is 

considered ‘‘breaking news’’ do not have to apply, wait for approval, and pay for 

land-use permits. This applies to public lands in both Washington state and Washington D.C.. But a follow-up story on the aftermath of the Yellowstone fire, or the 

reintroduction of wolves into the ecosystem, would require a media land-use permit, 

while interviewing Government officials on the same topics on the public land of the 

National Mall would not. 

Be it print, radio, or television, traditional news media is clearly a ‘‘for profit’’ venture. However, an exception from obtaining land-use permits for news media is intu-
55 

itive and appropriate, as the news media was not the target of the enabling legislation. 

An exception for outdoor media should also exist. Drawing attention to a field that 

receives few headlines, the outdoor media provides the public valuable information 

that they otherwise would not receive. The outdoor media that facilitates the mission of our public lands by providing vicarious access to our Nation’s natural beauty, 

were not the intended targets of the original regulations either. The legislation was 

promulgated to address large-scale commercial productions that generate significant 

profits filming on public land. 

The intent of the original legislation is clear. A sponsor of the bill, the late Sen. 

Craig Thomas of Wyoming, told the Rocky Mountain News ‘‘the provision was 

meant for larger-scale Hollywood movie productions, not small-scale nature films.’’ 

But what was originally created as a net to capture fees from Hollywood production 

crews, has become more like a seine, netting and extracting a toll from the solitary 

nature photographer and documentary producer to such an extent they no longer 

see the forest for the fees. 

Capturing nature on film or in photographs is very different from scripted and 

storyboarded commercial productions. When the director of a Rocky Mountain-based 

Coors commercial says ‘‘action,’’ a trained animal receives a cue, performs its trick, 

and the scene is done. For the professional outdoor photographer or videographer, 

the wolf, bear, or wild sheep which is the subject at hand is often, less cooperative. 

By its very nature, wildlife photography is extremely time consuming, often done 

in the harshest conditions; an important distinction that points out one of the inherent inequities in the proposed rules. While large film and television production 

crews need relatively little time on public lands to complete their project, our nation’s professional outdoor media may spend weeks or months in the field in order 

to capture a few magic seconds of unstaged Nature in its pristine state. And when 

outdoor media members spend time in the field, under the current fee structure, we 

also spend money, and lots of it. 

The current fee system is implemented if an activity has potential for commercial 

gain. If the activity is deemed for commercial purposes, then time and numbers of 

participants on the public land location are utilized to calculate the total land-use 

fee. As the rules exist today, acclaimed nature photographer Ansel Adams, the creator of those magnificent and historically significant black-and-white photographs 

which inspire an appreciation for natural beauty and the conservation ethic, and author of the classic book Ansel Adams: The National Parks Service Photographs, 

would have been charged $250 for each and every day he spent in Yosemite Park 

with camera in tow. If public land-use fees had been in effect in Adams’ day, I wonder if we would have had the opportunity to enjoy his remarkable photographs 

today. 

Nature photography, documentary, and television projects, traditionally low-budget productions to begin with, must spend a significantly greater amount of time in 

the field to capture wildlife drama than the Hollywood crews staging and blocking 

trained bears, canines, and other cooperative beasts. As fee payments are required 

as a multiple of the time spent on public land, outdoor media members are required 

to pay significantly greater amounts than those in the entertainment industry. 

However, the most significant inequity of the current system is the disproportionate application of fees as they pertain to the number of individuals actually on 

public land. This inherent imbalance in the current system transforms the land-use 

fee into a de facto regressive tax as it applies to outdoor media. 

As an example of the inherent bias in the system, consider the Bureau of Land 

Management’s ‘‘Filming on Public Lands’’ guidelines. The land-use fee in California 

is the same for a crew of one as it is for a crew of up to thirty people. A single 

wildlife documentary maker pays the same daily land-use fee as would a featurefilm’s entire location crew, including talent, camera operators, directors, producers, 

grips, electricians, sound technicians, and probably even a ‘‘best boy.’’ Perhaps more 

telling; if a remake of The Ten Commandments was shot today on BLM land in 

California, the daily land-use fee for the Exodus scene, where Moses leads a cast 

of thousands of out Egypt, would be slightly more than the $250 daily fee paid by 

the lone wildlife documentary maker. BLM’s daily-use charge for sixty or more people, which includes the cast and crew of the remade Exodus, would be $600. 

As mentioned previously, we have filmed a number of hunts in the Shoshone National Forest in northwest Wyoming. My guide, Monte Horst of Ishaowooa Outfitters, is a licensed outfitter and guide who pays a substantial annual fee to bring 

clients into his guide territory. Mr. Horst is a competent videographer, and instead 

of brining along an additional camera operator, Mr. Horst assumes the duties of 

camera operator, so as not to incur the additional expense of pack mules and horses 

for another crew member. Mr. Horst and I complete our shoot in four days. The only 
56 

difference between my experience, and that of the usual, other six clients in camp, 

is that as working outdoor media, I pack in an additional twenty pounds of camera 

gear. Four days on location to make a television program, with no additional personnel or pack animals on National Forest land, and my use fee is, like the remake 

of The Ten Commandments, $600. 

This illustrates the inequity of the current system: charging a crew of one the 

same fee as is charged a crew of thirty, is inequitable and inherently unfair. In addition, while the expense of land-use fees are an inconsequential part of a feature 

film or network commercial’s budget, the cumulative, daily fees that accrue against 

an independent producer or freelance photographer are not only significant budgetary expenses, they are, proportionately, such a large percentage of the project’s 

budget, the fees could reasonably be viewed as a regressive tax, and will often, be 

the catalyst for moving a project from public land to another location. 

I am also submitting testimony as a representative of the Wild Sheep Foundation, 

(WSF) a service-based conservation organization that focuses on the betterment of 

wild sheep in North America and elsewhere. In addition to being a life member of 

this organization, I have also the executive producer of their television series, Hittin’ 

the Outdoors. The series promotes the conservation of wild sheep and other big 

game species of the western United States. Sustained-use sport hunting is an integral part of modern wildlife species management, and as a tool of conservation, is 

an important part of the television series. 

WSF is an organization that raises and spends millions of dollars each year for 

the sole purpose of ‘‘putting sheep on the mountain.’’ Their conservation projects are 

numerous, and include sheep capture and relocation, wildlife research, habitat improvement, and acquisition of buffer lands to prevent transmission of disease from 

domestic stock to wild sheep. Since 1984, WSF has raised and spent over 

$30,000,000 for habitat and wildlife conservation projects, many of which were DOI/ 

DOA initiated, and funded by WSF at the Department’s request. 

Many of these DOI/DOA projects benefit wild sheep, as three of the four wild 

sheep species of North America are indigenous to the United States. Wild sheep live 

in wild places, and obtaining footage of these magnificent creatures can be a long 

and arduous task. The average television shoot for wild sheep is fifteen days, and 

virtually all of the filming would take place on Federal land. Based on the current 

regulations, our production budget to produce on US public land would need to be 

increased by $20,000 to $25,000 dollars to pay the land-use fees, which generate no 

return on investment. 

As we created the WSF television series, many of the storylines we developed 

should have focused on one or more of the DOI or DOA conservation projects that 

has benefited from the millions of dollars donated by the Foundation. As you may 

already surmise, the paradoxical result for WSF, a benefactor of Federally-initiated 

conservation projects, would be the assessment of daily land-use fees to promote the 

very projects they have funded on behalf of the Government. The sad reality is, due 

to financial considerations in the competitive arena of the television industry, numerous otherwise US-located shoots, have been, and continue to be, scheduled in 

Canada and Mexico, where wild sheep also live, and where the Governments are 

more receptive to the positive publicity that is generated by a television feature. The 

same is true for the Dallas Safari Club and USA Shooting, the governing body for 

the US’s Olympic Shooting Sports. Both are involved in the production of television 

programs based on public lands, and both, to varying degrees, have encountered the 

same difficulties and financial hardships as the Wild Sheep Foundation. 

It is a difficult crafting rules to apply to broad and diverse circumstances. Most 

would agree that public access to public land at little or no cost is desirable. A majority also understand it is reasonable to assess appropriate fees for feature-film production that takes place on public land. This was the intent of the original legislation. The problem occurs in finding a fair and equitable solution for the thousands 

of individuals and small businesses that occasionally utilize public land in their 

craft, but have little or no impact on the land, and often, provide important benefits 

to the Government and the citizens of this country. 

The Government has chosen to use three criteria to determine liability for fees: 

commercial venture, time on federal land, and number of people involved. Determination of when or whether a venture is commercial is often subjective and difficult to codify. Time spent ‘‘on the ground’’ is a reasonable factor to evaluate when 

considering any given venture, but it is hardly indicative of the impact of that venture on Federal land. In my opinion, and in the consensus opinion of the professional outdoor media of this country, the most telling and appropriate variable to 

consider in assessing fair and equitable land-use charges is to consider the number 

of individuals that are actually present on public land. At present, this criterion is 
57 

the most unjust aspect of the current rules, yet the modifications in the proposed 

bill will go far to remedy the inequity of the present circumstance. 

Basing fees on the actual number of persons engaged in the project on federal 

land is a reasonable standard of measure. However, the Government’s factor for consideration that one person on public land is the same as thirty is inaccurate and 

renders an unfair result. The outdoor media should not be categorized in the same 

manner as a Hollywood production crew, but when the prevailing math considers 

one and thirty to be equal, unforeseen and unintended results have occurred. However, the proposed exception provided in SB 1241 for production crews of five or less 

to pay an annual fee of $200 corrects the current inequities. The bill standardizes 

the fee structure, as well as the process by unifying and standardizing the rules 

throughout all Government agencies. By standardizing the criteria for access to public lands, and creating an exception for crews of five or less for outdoor media and 

other low-impact groups, the unforeseen and unintended outcome of the current regulations will be remedied. Appropriate payments will continue to be made by those 

for which the fees were intended, and the independent outdoor media will once 

again, be free to report on and feature conservation issues of our public lands without overly-burdensome access and/or financial consequences. We strongly support 

SB 1241, and look forward to its swift passage and implementation. 

Thank you for the opportunity, and for your consideration. 

STATEMENT OF MARK J. BONINI, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, AMADOR COUNTY, JACKSON, CA, ON S. 1571 

I am writing to express Amador County’s support of S 1571, the Deafy Glade 

Land Exchange Act. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to 

transfer title to Fouts Springs Ranch in the Mendocino National Forest to the County of Solano in exchange for the County transferring property known as Deafy Glade 

in the Mendocino Forest to the Secretary. 

Fouts Springs Youth Facility is a youth correctional camp available for our County’s use, as an alternative placement for wards that are approaching the level of 

committing serious delinquent acts that may warrant a commitment to the State 

Division of Juvenile Justice. Solano County operates the camp under a joint powers 

authority with Colusa County on approximately 82 acres of Forest Service land in 

the Mendocino National Forest, which is leased from the National Forest Service. 

At the camp, youth participate in a structured cognitive behavioral program that 

includes counseling, behavior modification and education; with the goal of giving 

them skills in preparation for reentry into their local community. The Facility has 

six month, nine month, and one year program components, depending on the needs 

of the local judiciary. 

We are seeking your continued support and assistance in our efforts to assure 

that this valuable resource remains available, not only to our County, but to all the 

potential user Counties throughout the State of California. 

The facility provides an invaluable service by removing youth from their current 

environment where it is all too easy to return to criminal behavior and gives them 

the skills to change their lives. Fouts Springs, which has been in operation since 

1959, is in need of major repairs. Solano County is reluctant to continue to make 

capital improvements to the Facility since it does not own the land on which it is 

located. Solano County, therefore, purchased another parcel of land in the 

Mendocino Forest that is of equal or greater value which it has proposed to swap 

with the Secretary for the Fouts Springs land. We urge you to continue to support 

this important legislation which would consummate the transfer and allow Solano 

County to continue to invest in Fouts Springs and provide alternative treatment to 

delinquent youth of the juvenile courts. Your ongoing support is especially important during these difficult times when other youth correctional camps in the state 

are closing their doors. 

We appreciate your consideration and continued support. 

STATEMENT OF DON AMADOR, WESTERN REPRESENTATIVE, BLUERIBBON COALITION, 

INC., OAKLEY, CA, ON S. 1571 

Just as last year, the BlueRibbon Coalition, a national trail-based recreation 

group, is strongly opposed to the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act. S. 1571 would 

permanently site a youth correctional facility in the center of a prime Forest Service 

recreation area that provides for both the motorized and non-motorized activities. 

A recent FS analysis showed this site should remain in federal ownership to help 

meet future recreation needs such as camping and parking. 
58 

With the passage of the North Coast Wilderness Bill in 2006, the recreation public 

has been directed to use destination recreation areas such as exists at Fouts 

Springs. As you know, there are 6 camping areas where families gather within 1/ 

4 miles of the correctional facility. These campsites provide access to both the 

Stonyford OHV Area and the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area. 

BRC believes both the recreation public and the correctional facility’s long-term 

interests would be best served if an alternate site was found in the nearby Indian 

Valley Area possibly on other federal lands (FS, BOR, BLM). As before, BRC stands 

ready to assist Congress, the agency, and local authorities find a more suitable site 

that is not directly adjacent to highly-valued family-oriented recreational opportunities. 

Should the subcommittee vote in favor of S. 1571, BRC suggests that reversion 

language be added to the final bill should the county decide at a future date to dispose of the property. Please distribute this letter to all members of the subcommittee. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN K. BORDIN, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, COLUSA COUNTY, COLUSA, CA, ON S. 1571 

I am writing to express Colusa County’s support of S 1571, the Deafy Glade Land 

Exchange Act. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer 

title to Fouts Springs Ranch in the Mendocino National Forest to the County of Solano in exchange for the County transferring property known as Deafy Glade in the 

Mendocino Forest to the Secretary. 

Fouts Springs Youth Facility is a youth correctional camp available for our County’s use, as an alternative placement for wards that are approaching the level of 

committing serious delinquent acts that may warrant a commitment to the State 

Division of Juvenile Justice. Solano County operates the camp under a joint powers 

authority with Colusa County on approximately 82 acres of Forest Service land in 

the Mendocino National Forest, which is leased from the National Forest Service. 

At the camp, youth participate in a structured cognitive behavioral program that 

includes counseling, behavior modification and education; with the goal of giving 

them skills in preparation for reentry into their local community. The Facility has 

six month, nine month, and one year program components, depending on the needs 

of the local judiciary. 

We are seeking your continued support and assistance in our efforts to assure 

that this valuable resource remains available, not only to our County, but to all the 

potential user Counties throughout the State of California. 

The facility provides an invaluable service by removing youth from their current 

environment where it is all too easy to return to criminal behavior and gives them 

the skills to change their lives. Fouts Springs, which has been in operation since 

1959, is in need of major repairs. Solano County is reluctant to continue to make 

capital improvements to the Facility since it does not own the land on which it is 

located. Solano County, therefore, purchased another parcel of land in the 

Mendocino Forest that is of equal or greater value which it has proposed to swap 

with the Secretary for the Fouts Springs land. We urge you to continue to support 

this important legislation which would consumate the transfer and allow Solano 

County to continue to invest in Fouts Springs and provide alternative treatment to 

delinquent youth of the juvenile courts. Your ongoing support is especially important during these difficult times when other youth correctional camps in the state 

are closing their doors. 

We appreciate your consideration and continued support. 

STATEMENT OF LIONEL D. CHATMAN, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, CONTRA COSTA

COUNTY, MARTINEZ, CA, ON S. 1571 

I am writing to express Contra Costa County Probation Department’s support of 

S 1571, the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer title to Fouts Springs Ranch in the Mendocino National Forest to the County of Solano in exchange for the County transferring property known as Deafy Glade in the Mendocino Forest to the Secretary. 

Fouts Springs Youth Facility is a youth correctional camp available for our County’s use, as an alternative placement for wards that are approaching the level of 

committing serious delinquent acts that may warrant a commitment to the State 

Division of Juvenile Justice. Solano County operates the camp under a joint powers 

authority with Colusa County on approximately 82 acres of Forest Service land in 

the Mendocino National Forest, which is leased from the National Forest Service. 
59 

At the camp, youth participate in a structured cognitive behavioral program that 

includes counseling, behavior modification and education; with the goal of giving 

them skills in preparation for reentry into their local community. The Facility has 

six month, nine month, and one year program components, depending on the needs 

of the local judiciary. 

We are seeking your continued support and assistance in our efforts to assure 

that this valuable resource remains available, not only to our County, but to all the 

potential user Counties throughout the State of California. 

The facility provides an invaluable service by removing youth from their current 

environment where it is all too easy to return to criminal behavior and gives them 

the skills to change their lives. Fouts Springs, which has been in operation since 

1959, is in need of major repairs. Solano County is reluctant to continue to make 

capital improvements to the Facility since it does not own the land on which it is 

located. Solano County, therefore, purchased another parcel of land in the 

Mendocino Forest that is of equal or greater value which it has proposed to swap 

with the Secretary for the Fouts Springs land. We urge you to continue to support 

this important legislation which would consumate the transfer and allow Solano 

County to continue to invest in Fouts Springs and provide alternative treatment to 

delinquent youth of the juvenile courts. Your ongoing support is especially important during these difficult times when other youth correctional camps in the state 

are closing their doors. 

We appreciate your consideration and continued support. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD A. MUENCH, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER, TEHAMA COUNTY, RED BLUFF, CA, ON S. 1571 

I am writing to express Tehama County’s support of S 1571, the Deafy Glade 

Land Exchange Act. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to 

transfer title to Fouts Springs Ranch in the Mendocino National Forest to the County of Solano in exchange for the County transferring property known as Deafy Glade 

in the Mendocino Forest to the Secretary. 

Fouts Springs Youth Facility is a youth correctional camp available for our County’s use, as an alternative placement for wards that are approaching the level of 

committing serious delinquent acts that may warrant a commitment to the State 

Division of Juvenile Justice. Solano County operates the camp under a joint powers 

authority with Colusa County on approximately 82 acres of Forest Service land in 

the Mendocino National Forest, which is leased from the National Forest Service. 

At the camp, youth participate in a structured cognitive behavioral program that 

includes counseling, behavior modification and education; with the goal of giving 

them skills in preparation for reentry into their local community. The Facility has 

six month, nine month, and one year program components, depending on the needs 

of the local judiciary. 

We are seeking your continued support and assistance in our efforts to assure 

that this valuable resource remains available. not only to our County, but to all the 

potential user Counties throughout the State of California. 

The facility provides an invaluable service by removing youth from their current 

environment where it is all too easy to return to criminal behavior and gives them 

the skills to change their lives. Fouts Springs, which has been in operation since 

1959, is in need of major repairs. Solano County is reluctant to continue to make 

capital improvements to the Facility since it does not own the land on which it is 

located. Solano County, therefore, purchased another parcel of land in the 

Mendocino Forest that is of equal or greater value which it has proposed to swap 

with the Secretary for the Fouts Springs land. We urge you to continue to support 

this important legislation which would consummate the transfer and allow Solano 

County to continue to invest in Fouts Springs and provide alternative treatment to 

delinquent youth of the juvenile courts. Your ongoing support is especially important during these difficult times when other youth correctional camps in the state 

are closing their doors. We appreciate your consideration and continued support. 

STATEMENT OF HELEN M. THOMSON, CHAIRWOMAN, YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS, WOODLAND, CA, ON S. 1571 

The Yolo County Board of Supervisors would like to express its support of S 1571, 

the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act. This legislation would direct the Secretary of 

Agriculture to transfer title to Fouts Springs Ranch in the Mendocino National Forest to the County of Solano in exchange for the County transferring property known 

as Deafy Glade in the Mendocino Forest to the Secretary. 
60 

Fouts Springs Youth Facility is a youth correctional camp available for our County’s use, as an alternative placement for wards that are approaching the level of 

committing serious delinquent acts that may warrant a commitment to the State 

Division of Juvenile Justice. Solano County operates the camp under a joint powers 

authority with Colusa County on approximately 82 acres of Forest Service land in 

the Mendocino National Forest, which is leased from the National Forest Service. 

At the camp, youth participate in a structured cognitive behavioral program that 

includes counseling, behavior modification and education; with the goal of giving 

them skills in preparation for reentry into their local community. The Facility has 

six month, nine month, and one year program components, depending on the needs 

of the local judiciary. 

We are seeking your continued support and assistance in our efforts to assure 

that this valuable resource remains available, not only to our County, but to all the 

potential user Counties throughout the State of California. 

The facility provides an invaluable service by removing youth from their current 

environment where it is all too easy to return to criminal behavior and gives them 

the skills to change their lives. Fouts Springs, which has been in operation since 

1959, is in need of major repairs. Solano County is reluctant to continue to make 

capital improvements to the Facility since it does not own the land on which it is 

located. Solano County, therefore, purchased another parcel of land in the 

Mendocino Forest that is of equal or greater value which it has proposed to swap 

with the Secretary for the Fouts Springs land. We urge your continued support for 

this important legislation which would consummate the transfer and allow Solano 

County to continue to invest in Fouts Springs and provide alternative treatment to 

delinquent youth of the juvenile courts. Your ongoing support is especially important during these difficult times when other youth correctional camps in the state 

are closing their doors. We appreciate your consideration and continued support. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN R. COLBURN, NATIONAL STEWARDSHIP DIRECTOR, AMERICAN

WHITEWATER, ON S. 3075 

My name is Kevin Colburn and I am the National Stewardship Director of American Whitewater. I live and work in Missoula, Montana. American Whitewater is 

a national non-profit organization with a mission of conserving and restoring our 

nation’s whitewater resources while enhancing opportunities to enjoy them safely. 

Since 1954 our organization has represented conservation-oriented non-commercial 

whitewater canoeists, kayakers, and rafters in a wide range of river stewardship 

issues. American Whitewater has over 5,000 members and 100 affiliate clubs distributed across the United States. We have one affiliate club and a stewardship office in Montana. We strongly believe that healthy rivers are a vital component of 

healthy communities. 

Our members and staff have been deeply concerned with the threats to the North 

Fork of the Flathead River for the past several years. The North Fork of the Flathead River offers paddlers one of the most spectacular river trips in the Northern 

Rockies. This Class II+ (beginner/intermediate) river can be paddled in a wide diversity of craft by people of almost any ability level. Paddlers are awestruck by the 

massive peaks of Glacier National Park which tower over the east side of the river. 

Wildlife abounds, the water is clean and radiant green, and the fishing is great. 

While one-day trips are possible, many groups choose to spend two or more days 

on the river. Beaches and cobble bars provide superb campsites. Easy access, no permitting requirements, and a long season further contribute to the river’s appeal. I 

have personally rowed a raft down the North Fork with my wife, and assure you 

it is a very special place deserving careful protection. 

Mineral extraction and energy development in the North Fork Watershed could 

impact recreational experiences by impacting water quality and related fisheries, 

wildlife viewing opportunities, scenery, road safety, and the natural soundscape. 

These impacts would diminish the values previously recognized and protected by 

Congress when they designated the river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The 

North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010, S. 3075, offers timely protection from 

very real threats to this spectacular Wild and Scenic river and its enjoyment. American Whitewater is fully supportive of S. 3075, and we encourage its prompt passage. 

We respectfully ask that you consider expanding the scope of the bill to include 

the South Fork and Middle Fork of the Flathead River as well as the North Fork. 

The three forks of the Flathead are Wild and Scenic, each offer important wildlife 

and fisheries habitat, and each are cherished recreational paddling destinations. Expanding the geographical scope of the S. 3075 would ensure the protection of these 
61 

important values, and would further protect the ecology and water quality of Flathead Lake. 

Thank you for considering this testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DUCKS UNLIMITED, GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL OFFICE, 

BISMARCK, ND 

NEWS RELEASE

HELENA, Mont., March 11, 2010—Ducks Unlimited supports legislation sponsored by Montana’s senators to protect the Upper Flathead Valley. Sens. Max Bacus 

and Jon Tester introduced The North Fork Watershed Protection Act that protects 

the North Fork of the Flathead Drainage. The legislation is in conjunction with a 

similar measure in British Columbia. 

‘‘The legislation will protect the water quality of downstream flows to key wetlands in this drainage area. This is a critical staging area for migrating waterfowl 

and supports more than 50,000 waterfowl each year,’’ said Robert Sanders, DU 

manager of conservation programs for Montana. ‘‘For example, the region’s large 

number of small wetlands has been known to support one of the highest densities 

of nesting redheads in the U.S.’’ 

Most of the land in the Flathead Valley is federally owned, with miles of grassland dotted with hundreds of small wetlands. The Intermountain West Joint Venture Coordinated Bird Conservation Plan and numerous federal and state level bird 

conservation plans list this valley as a priority landscape for waterfowl and other 

birds. 

‘‘It’s imperative water quality in this key area be maintained,’’ Sanders said, ‘‘and 

DU supports the North Fork legislation as a way to ensure water quality is maintained for these important habitats.’’ 

Ducks Unlimited is the world’s largest non-profit organization dedicated to conserving North America’s continually disappearing waterfowl habitats. Established in 

1937, Ducks Unlimited has conserved more than 12 million acres thanks to contributions from more than a million supporters across the continent. Guided by 

science and dedicated to program efficiency, DU works toward the vision of wetlands 

sufficient to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and forever. 

STATEMENT OF ROBIN STEINKRAUS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND GREG MCCORMICK, 

TREASURER, FOR LARRY ASHCRAFT, PRESIDENT, FLATHEAD LAKERS, POISON, MT, 

ON S. 3075 

On behalf of the Flathead Lakers, we extend our sincere thanks for your leadership in protecting the Flathead Watershed from upstream coal mines. Your work 

on this threat to clean water in the North Fork Flathead River on downstream to 

Flathead Lake was instrumental in leading to the landmark agreement between 

Governor Schweitzer and Premier Campbell that will greatly benefit the Flathead’s 

priceless waters, wildlife and scenic beauty on both sides of the international boundary for many generations to come. 

We see this agreement as the culmination of decades of hopes, dreams and hard 

work of many leaders and groups, and the beginning of a new era of transboundary 

cooperation to sustain the qualities that make the Flathead a unique and special 

place. 

The Flathead Lakers endorse your bill, S.3075—the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010, to withdraw public lands from leasing for mining and energy 

extraction in the North Fork Watershed. In addition, we support adding to the bill 

the area adjacent to Glacier National Park along the Middle Fork Flathead River 

corridor, and areas in the Whitefish River headwaters near Big Mountain and at 

Haskill Basin, which drains into the mainstem Flathead River. 

Passage of this bill will not only protect Flathead waters and natural heritage for 

the future, but will also be a big step toward implementing the Montana-British Columbia agreement and demonstrating to B.C. officials the sincerity of Montana and 

the United States in ensuring that we uphold our commitments on the U.S. side 

of the border. 
62 

STATEMENT OF JOE UNTERREINER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, KALISPELL CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE, ON S. 3075 

We are very encouraged by the recent breakthrough between Montana and British 

Columbia on the Transboundary Flathead issue. We write you today to thank you 

for your work to secure this victory and to encourage you to press on to finalize the 

needed conservation goals for both sides of the international boundary. 

In particular, we are aware of the project to permanently retire the dormant oil 

and gas leases that cover 200,000 acres of the Whitefish Range west of Glacier Park 

on the Flathead National Forest. The Flathead Basin Commission supports this 

withdrawal. We write you today in support of the retirement of the leases within 

the North Fork drainage. 

We also believe that the only way to prevent the B.C. government from repealing 

their ‘‘Order in Council’’ that established the mining and energy ban in the Flathead 

is to establish a bi-national watershed agreement of some kind between both federal 

governments. 

The Kalispell Chamber of Commerce exists to promote responsible and sensible 

economic development. The Flathead Valley is blessed with many natural, renewable resources that have provided the foundation for a healthy and diversified local 

economy. 

Glacier National Park and the North Fork River Valley play a very important 

part in our economic vitality. Flathead Lake also serves as a critical economic engine for the region. 

The Chamber wishes to ensure that Glacier Park, the North Fork River, and Flathead Lake remain as economically productive as they are today. We think that oil 

and gas development in the Whitefish Range would be inconsistent with our interest 

to see the entire watershed protected from upstream (Canadian) pollution. How can 

we ask the Canadians to forego development of their coal and gas resources within 

the North Fork watershed if we are not willing to make the same decision? 

It is for these reasons that we support the retirement of the oil and gas leases 

in the Whitefish Range. We ask that you make this issue a priority in 2010. We 

think the model established for the Rocky Mountain Front (a willing seller/willing 

buyer system with legislated oil and gas withdrawal) could be the appropriate retirement method. 

We also urge you to find a way to bring both federal governments to the table 

to negotiate some form of a watershed agreement for the Transboundary Flathead. 

After 36-years of conflict with B.C. over appropriate resource development in the 

North Fork we are delighted that the B.C. government recognizes the river’s special 

character. We once again urge you to seize this historic moment to make this victory 

permanent. 

STATEMENT OF JEREMY MORGRET, PRESIDENT, POLSON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, 

ON S. 3075 

Thank you for introducing Senate Bill 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection 

Act of 2010. The Polson Chamber of Commerce supports this legislation which withdraws future mining, oil and gas drilling, and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service land in Montana’s North Fork Flathead River watershed. 

We also support slightly expanding the boundary of S. 3075 to incorporate the remainder of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River corridor to complete the protection of Glacier Park, the south flank of the Whitefish Range and Haskill Basin to 

protect recreation assets and Whitefish City’s water supply, and the Coram Canyon 

area to protect the Flathead River and recreation. The attached map shows the proposed boundary. 

Flathead Lake is an important asset to Polson, its economy and our businesses. 

S. 3075 will help protect Flathead Lake water quality and the economic health of 

our city from upstream threats of industrial energy development. S. 3075 is a critical step towards implementing the Montana—British Columbia agreement signed 

by Governor Schweitzer and Premier Campbell that bans mining and oil and gas 

extraction in the transboundary North Fork Flathead Valley. 

The United States and Canada have a historic opportunity to protect the North 

Fork of the Flathead River, Glacier National Park, and Flathead Lake for future 

generations. S. 3075 represents a crucial component of this legacy. Thank you for 

your efforts to protect Flathead waters. 
63 

* Other undersigned groups: Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Big Blackfoot Chapter Trout 

Unlimited, Billings Rod and Gun Club, Bitter Root Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Flathead Valley Chapter Trout Unlimited, Flathead Wildlife Inc., Gallatin Wildlife Association, George Grant Chapter Trout Unlimited, Helena Hunters and Anglers, Hellgate Hunters and Anglers, Izaak Walton League of America, Joe Brooks Chapter Trout Unlimited, 

Kootenai Valley Trout Club, Lewis and Clark Chapter Trout Unlimited, Libby Rod & Gun Club, 

Madison-Gallatin Chapter Trout Unlimited, Magic City Fly Fishers, Medicine River Canoe Club, 

Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Montana River Action Network, Montana Trout 

Unlimited, Montana Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation, Park County Rod and 

Gun Club, Pat Barnes Missouri River Chapter Trout Unlimited, Polson Outdoors, Inc., Snowy 

Mountain Chapter Trout Unlimited, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Trout Unlimited, West Slope Chapter Trout Unlimited. 

STATEMENT OF ANACONDA SPORTSMEN CLUB,* ON S. 3075 

We the undersigned organizations represent hundreds of thousands of hunters 

and anglers from across the country and right here in Montana are writing to express our full and strong support for S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection 

Act of 2010, to withdraw US Forest Service land in the North Fork Watershed from 

future oil and gas leasing activities. Our memberships represent a diverse group of 

the American public for who hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation is a way of life. 

The North Fork of the Flathead is one of Montana’s most special places to hunt 

and fish. Public lands in this valley provide unique and unparalleled opportunities 

to access our nation’s rich natural heritage. The watershed provides critical habitat 

for bull and cutthroat trout and since the days of Theodore Roosevelt, hunters have 

been coming to the valley to pursue world class mule deer, elk and moose opportunities. This valley truly is one of the wildest valleys in the continental United States, 

and we believe the next generation should have the same opportunity we have to 

experience this special place. 

The North Fork Watershed Protection Act is an important step in ensuring that 

traditional land-uses, such as timber and outdoor recreation are protected in this 

valley. Oil, gas and hard rock mineral extraction in the North Fork would forever 

change this special place and cause serious harm to water and air quality, native 

trout, and big game populations. That means big business in Montana, where hunters and anglers contribute $1 billion annually to the state economy. 

In addition to impacting sportsmen and women, oil and gas extraction would have negative impacts on the regional economy—as millions of tourists spend over $150 

million dollars each year to experience the clean water and wildlife of Glacier National Park. 

We understand our need for fossil fuels and hard rock minerals, and we believe 

that part of responsible development is recognizing that some places are too special 

to be industrialized. The North Fork of the Flathead is one of these places. 

A final reason we support S. 3075 is to be a good neighbor. British Columbia has 

now banned mining in the Canadian Flathead and asked us to do the same. For 

decades, proposals for massive coal strip-mines in the Canadian headwaters of the 

North Fork have threatened the water quality of the Flathead River, Flathead Lake, 

and Glacier National Park. 

Today there is a unique and special opportunity to protect the North Fork of the 

Flathead and Glacier National Park forever, preserving our sporting traditions for 

those unborn generations. S. 3075 is a necessary and essential piece of legislation 

to complete this legacy. Our organizations look forward to working with you to pass 

this important legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, ON S. 3075 

The Wilderness Society (TWS), representing over 500,000 members and supporters from across the United States, would like to go on the record as enthusiastically supporting S. 3075, the ‘‘North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010’’ introduced by Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester. Glacier National Park, as 

well as many of the national forest lands addressed in this bill, are of national significance and S. 3075’s passage would benefit many Americans from all walks of life 

as well as future generations. In addition, passage of this bill ensures that the 

United States ‘‘acts by example’’ and fully engages in the coordinated, partnership 

approach requested by the province of British Columbia when they agreed this winter to take action to protect the Canadian side of the North Fork Flathead from coal, 

oil and gas, and mining development. Also important is that this bill has almost no 

active opposition, as to our knowledge, no organized group, relevant elected official, 
64 

Montana newspaper, or affected constituency has spoken out against S. 3075. Instead, there has been an impressive outpouring of diverse and formal support from 

local businesses, civic groups, Chambers of Commerce, City Councils, sportsmen and 

conservation groups, and others. 

As explained below, we would like to see some mostly minor additions and improvements made to the bill. Thus, we stand ready to work with Senators Baucus 

and Tester, the Committee and Senate staff to ensure this bill is refined and quickly 

becomes law. 

THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT CONTEXT

With its rugged peaks, native grasslands, and sparkling waters, Montana is one 

of the most ecologically intact states in the union and one of its most precious regions is the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem (the Crown). The Crown, comprised 

of the 10 million-acre area where Montana, British Columbia, and Alberta converge, 

is one of the few remaining large, intact, temperate ecosystems in the world. It encompasses multiple climatic zones, including rainforest, alpine, and prairie; contains 

high levels of biodiversity; and is one of only two bioregions in the lower 48 states 

that has retained its full complement of native species. In fact, except for wild bison, 

all the species present when Lewis and Clark first came to this area still make the 

Crown their home. 

Just as significant, the Crown provides key areas of connectivity in the Northern 

Rockies, which are critical to sustaining ecological processes at a large enough scale 

to promote increased resilience to climate change. It also includes key wildlife migration corridors and serves as habitat for bears, wolves, elk, deer, native cutthroat 

trout, and grayling. The ecosystem also provides clean, cold water for surrounding 

human communities, contains cultural and religious sites important to the Blackfeet 

Tribe, and boasts world-class hunting, wildlife viewing, backpacking, and horseback 

riding opportunities. 

There has also been an impressive history of conservation achievements in the 

Crown over many decades. From the world’s first International Peace Park at Glacier-Waterton Parks, to the state’s first game range with Sun River Refuge, to the 

first citizen initiated addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System 

(Scapegoat Wilderness), as well as others, there have been numerous investments 

and actions taken to preserve this world renown ecosystem. 

These efforts have continued in more recent times. In 2006, Senator Baucus successfully spearheaded legislation that withdrew approximately 500,000 acres of federal lands and minerals on the Rocky Mountain Front which makes up the eastern 

portion of the Crown. In 2008, the Senator secured federal funding for the Montana 

Legacy Project which is bringing into federal ownership over 300,000 acres of western Montana forestland, including important areas in the southwestern Crown. And 

Senator Tester has introduced S. 1474 which among other things would designate 

over 86,000 acres of new wilderness in the Blackfoot region of the Crown. Meanwhile, there is also under consideration a collaboratively developed proposal, the 

‘‘Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act,’’ which would add 87,000 acres to the Bob 

Marshall Wilderness complex and designate a 307,000 acre ‘‘conservation management area’’ for all BLM and Forest Service lands on the Front. Passage of S. 3075 

would build upon this proud legacy and complement these other efforts. 

THE TRANS-BOUNDARY CONTEXT

With its headwaters in British Columbia and its downstream reaches in Montana, 

the trans-boundary Flathead river valley is a crucial component to not only GlacierWaterton Parks but also to the local ecology and economy. Besides tremendous big 

game populations, this valley supports the greatest density of grizzly bears in interior North America and some of the continent’s healthiest runs of native bull trout 

and cutthroat trout. There are also many fishing, rafting, and tourism businesses 

dependent upon the Flathead watershed remaining clean, wild, and healthy. It is 

for this reason that the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce, as well as numerous individual businesses, have written letters of support. To quote from the Chamber’s 

April 5, 2010 letter to Senator Baucus: ‘‘The Chamber wishes to ensure that Glacier 

Park, the North Fork River Valley, and Flathead Lake remain as economically productive as they are today. We think that oil and gas development in the Whitefish 

Range would be inconsistent with our interest to see the entire watershed protected 

from upstream (Canadian) pollution.’’ 

Indeed, passing S. 3075 would not only help protect the United States side of this 

watershed but also help ensure resolution of the threats on the upstream, Canadian 

side of the watershed. Swift passage of this bill is a critical step toward implementing the International Flathead agreement that was signed in February by Mon-
65 

tana Governor Brian Schweitzer and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell. 

It banned all types of mining and oil and gas extraction in the entire Transboundary 

Flathead and committed each country to take action to protect its respective portion 

of the watershed. The United States can demonstrate its strong support and compliance with this agreement in part by passing S. 3075. This will help ensure that Canadians comply and forego development of their coal and oil and gas resources within the upstream North Fork watershed. 

A PROVEN APPROACH

In recent years federal legislation permanently withdrawing sensitive national 

forest and/or BLM lands from new oil and gas leasing, mineral entry, and other 

forms of energy development has been passed for several places. Besides the 2006 

legislation mentioned earlier for Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front, Congress has 

also passed legislation withdrawing approximately 101,000 acres in the Valle Vidal 

portion of the Carson national forest (New Mexico) and 1.2 million acres in the Wyoming Range on the Bridger Teton National Forest. 

Much of the lands in the Flathead Forest relating to S. 3075 have leases on them 

that were issued in the 1980s but then found to be issued in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act and so were 

suspended by the Department of Interior. No actions have been taken to remedy the 

legal deficiencies over the last twenty five years and no drilling has occurred on any 

of these leases. In a sense, these lands have remained in a legal limbo where leaseholders could not easily proceed to develop them but the public could also not be 

assured that they were fully protected from energy development. 

Given this situation, it is instructive to see how withdrawal legislation passed for 

both the Rocky Mountain Front and the Wyoming Range has helped to protect those 

areas and see the resolution of similarly complicated leasing situations. With the 

Front, there were over 150,000 acres of leases within the withdrawal area passed 

by Congress and these were all valid leases, unlike those at issue with S. 3075. 

There have now been five separate lease retirement agreements that has resulted 

in almost 111,000 acres of these leases being retired, either through purchase by 

conservation buyers or by donation to the government. The most recent agreement 

was in January 2010 when Occidental Petroleum, Rosewood Resources, XTO Energy, BP, and Williams voluntarily donated leases totaling 28,370 acres in the Badger Two Medicine portion of the Front near Glacier Park. Meanwhile, with the Wyoming Range, there were approximately 44,000 acres of leases within the withdrawal 

area that were offered and/or issued with legal deficiencies in 2005-2006. Now there 

is a Forest Service process underway which should result in the cancellation and 

removal of all these leases and the return of the holders acquisition costs (the February 2010 Draft EIS on these leases has as its preferred alternative the cancelling/ 

removing of all these leases). 

NEED FOR SLIGHT EXPANSION OF S. 3075’S WITHDRAWAL AREA

While we understand that S. 3075’s withdrawal boundary was originally drafted 

on a strict hydrologic boundary for the North Fork Flathead drainage, there is a 

need to slightly expand this withdrawal line to include some adjacent federal lands/ 

minerals that similarly relate to protecting Glacier National Park and to the 

ecologic, economic, and recreational values at stake for the Flathead drainage. As 

shown in the attached map (areas in grey), these areas are technically in the watersheds for the Middle Fork Flathead, South Fork Flathead, and Whitefish Lake 

drainages. These requested additions to the withdrawal area total between 5,000 

and 6,000 acres. While not formally in the North Fork Flathead watershed, they 

share the same problem of issued/questionable oil and gas leases and also have a 

strong and diverse constituency seeking their protection from oil and gas development. Numerous businesses, individuals, and elected bodies have written to not only 

endorse S. 3075 but to also ask for the expansion of its withdrawal area to include 

nearby, connected lands. Here is an excerpt from the City of Whitefish’s letter to 

Senators Tester and Baucus: 

In addition, we would encourage your offices to support expanding the geographic scope of S. 3075 to include federal lands located in the headwaters 

of Haskill Creek, a tributary to the Whitefish River in the upper Flathead 

River watershed. . . .Withdrawing future mining, oil and gas drilling, and 

geothermal development on federal lands located in the headwaters of 

Haskill Creek will help achieve this goal, and further safeguard our community’s water supply for existing and future generations of Montanans. 
66 

We would like to go on the record as supporting withdrawal expansion requests 

like these. In addition to being consistent with the North Fork Flathead agreement, 

we would also note that it is important to see S. 3075’s withdrawal boundary expanded to ‘‘fill the gap’’ around Glacier Park, during this year, the Park’s centennial. 

Senator Baucus’ Front withdrawal understood the need to not just limit its withdrawal boundary to a strict definition of the Front and so its boundary actually 

crossed out of the Lewis and Clark Forest and into the Flathead Forest to take in 

lands along Highway 2 and next to the southern boundary of Glacier national park. 

This withdrawal took in all the lands between the Great Bear Wilderness and Glacier Park going as far west as almost Essex. S. 3075 as introduced covers all the 

federal lands along Glacier’s western boundary down to the town of West Glacier. 

This leaves a small but important corridor next to Glacier—along the Middle Fork 

from West Glacier to Essex—unaddressed unless the withdrawal boundary is expanded to take in this area (see attached map). 

Should there be any expansion of S. 3075’s withdrawal boundary, as we hope, Section 2 of the bill’s definition of ‘‘eligible federal land’’ would have to be slightly 

amended, since it now limits the withdrawn area to a map with the North Fork watershed boundary. 

OTHER SUGGESTED REFINEMENTS

1) Clarification on withdrawal applying to future acquired lands: Within S. 

3075’s withdrawal boundary, there are some private and state owned minerals 

that would not be addressed by this legislation. It has come to our attention, 

that in some situations, confusion has arisen when land trades or purchases 

have acquired such non federal interests years (or decades) after Congress has 

passed a withdrawal for the area. In essence, there is a question on whether 

the withdrawal applied to only federal minerals at issue at the time of enactment or also included any mineral interests that the federal government should 

acquire after enactment and within the withdrawal boundary. We propose S. 

3075’s definition for ‘‘Eligible Federal Land’’ (Section 2) be amended to make 

this clear. For example, a phrase could be inserted so that the definition read: 

‘‘. . .means any federally owned land or interest in land—or acquired land or 

interest—as depicted on the map as within the North Fork Flathead watershed.’’ 

2) Formal clarification that no impact on lease validity = Since almost all the 

leases on the Flathead Forest were issued with just an Environmental Assessment, successfully challenged (Conner v Burford) for inadequate cumulative effects analysis, and then suspended, we think it is important to make clear that 

Congress acting on a withdrawal here (which pertains to only part of the Flathead Forest) not be interpreted to have some impact on the legal sufficiency of 

these leases or on any subsequent determination of the appropriateness of leasing other areas on the Flathead Forest. A similar situation arose with the Wyoming Range Legacy Act and so during mark up language was inserted in that 

legislation addressing this. We propose this same language be inserted in S. 

3075: 

(e) PRIOR LEASE SALES.—Nothing in this section 

22 prohibits the Secretary from taking any action necessary 

23 to issue, deny, remove the suspension of, or cancel a lease, 

24 or any sold lease parcel that has not been issued, pursuant 

25 to any lease sale conducted prior to the date of enactment 

1 of this Act, including the completion of any requirements 

2 under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

3 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

3) Authorization for lease retirements = Concurrent and beyond passage of 

this legislation, The Wilderness Society and other groups are committed to efforts to see the leases within S. 3075’s boundary retired. Similar to the Rocky 

Mountain Front example described earlier, we plan to try to convince current 

leaseholders to retire their leases whether via sale or donation. While we understand that this will have to be on a voluntary basis and without federal appropriations, we believe S. 3075 could play a helpful role in helping catalyze such 

voluntary lease retirements. Specifically we think it would be helpful in outreach to leaseholders (and to show the British Columbia government the intent 

of the United States Congress to fully protect our side of the North Fork Flathead) to have language that authorizes lease retirement. This sort of language 

was included in both the Rocky Mountain Front and Wyoming Range withdrawal bills and serves to explicitly acknowledge government’s interest in ac-
67 

cepting lease donations (Wyoming Range Legacy Act) and/or provide tax breaks 

for this purpose (Rocky Mountain Front legislation). We would hope that text 

could be added to S. 3075 similarly authorizing lease retirements. 

4) Requirement for DOI engagement with leaseholders = Related to the above 

point, we feel it would be helpful to include language requiring that following 

passage the Department of Interior must contact all leaseholders within the 

withdrawal area to let them know of Congress’ intent to protect the area and 

of the donation/retirement opportunities. Again, this was part of the Wyoming 

Range Legacy Act and read: 

SEC. 4. ACCEPTANCE OF THE DONATION OF VALID EXISTING 

MINING OR LEASING RIGHTS IN THE WYOMING RANGE. 

(a) NOTIFICATION OF LEASEHOLDERS.—Not later than 120 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide notice 

to holders of valid existing mining or leasing rights within the Wyoming 

Range Withdrawal Area of the potential opportunity for repurchase of those 

rights and retirement under this section. 

(b) REQUEST FOR LEASE RETIREMENT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A holder of a valid existing mining or leasing right 

within the Wyoming Range Withdrawal Area may submit a written notice 

to the Secretary of the interest of the holder in the retirement and repurchase of that right. 

(2) LIST OF INTERESTED HOLDERS.—The Secretary shall prepare a 

list of interested holders available to any non-Federal entity or person interested in acquiring that right for retirement by the Secretary. 

(c) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary may not use any Federal funds to 

purchase any right referred to in subsection (a). 

(d) DONATION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall— 

(1) accept the donation of any valid existing mining or leasing right in 

the Wyoming Range Withdrawal Area from the holder of that right or 

fromany non-Federal entity or person that acquires that right; and 

(2) on acceptance, cancel that right. 

CONCLUSION

TWS enthusiastically supports the overarching goal and components of S. 3075 

and sincerely thank Senators Baucus and Tester for their leadership on this issue 

and their ongoing dedication to protecting this nationally important portion of the 

Crown of the Continent Ecosystem. We are committed to working to see S. 3075’s 

passage and look forward to engaging with the Committee, Senator Tester and Senate staff to ensure that the final version of the bill is most effectively and serves 

Montana well for decades to come. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT BOSSE, NORTHERN ROCKIES DIRECTOR, AMERICAN RIVERS, 

ON S. 3075 

On behalf of American Rivers, I am pleased to present our written testimony in 

support of S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010 introduced by 

Montana Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester. After carefully reviewing the bill, 

and having spent a considerable amount of time visiting the landscape it would affect, we believe S. 3075 offers substantial conservation benefits for one of the most 

spectacular watersheds in North America, the local communities that are sustained 

by it, and the millions of tourists from across the nation and around the world who 

visit Glacier National Park and the greater Flathead region. This vital legislation 

is strongly supported by a broad cross-section of Montanans including local residents and elected leaders, businesses, chambers of commerce, hunters and anglers, 

and conservation organizations. To our knowledge, no organized group in Montana 

has spoken out in opposition to this bill. 

ABOUT AMERICAN RIVERS

American Rivers is the largest and most trusted river conservation organization 

in the nation, with more than 65,000 members and supporters from all 50 states— 

including hundreds of Montanans—who share a commitment to protecting and restoring our nation’s rivers for the benefit of people, wildlife and nature. For decades 

we have worked with local partners in Montana to permanently protect the North 

Fork of the Flathead River from various forms of mining and oil and gas drilling. 

In 2009, American Rivers included the North Fork on its annual list of Most Endan-
68 

* Appendix A–C have been retained in subcommittee files. 

gered RiversTM due to threats from industrial-scale coal mining, gold mining, and 

oil and gas drilling in its headwaters along the Montana-British Columbia border. 

GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT FISH & WILDLIFE RESOURCES

Due to its remoteness, lack of development, and pristine water quality, the North 

Fork serves as a globally significant stronghold for native fish, wildlife and plant 

species. Among the native fish species found in the North Fork are bull trout, a federally threatened species, and westslope cutthroat trout, which have been petitioned 

for listing under the Endangered Species Act and are considered a Species of Special 

Concern by the U.S. Forest Service and state of Montana. Both fish species migrate 

from Flathead Lake in Montana up to 150 miles upstream to the headwaters of the 

North Fork in British Columbia where they spawn in some of the cleanest, coldest 

water in North America. The migratory bull trout of the North Fork can reach over 

15 pounds and three feet in length. 

Thanks to its status as the last remaining undeveloped low-elevation valley in the 

Northern Rockies and its unique location at the crossroads of five major ecosystem 

types, the North Fork supports an unparalleled diversity of wildlife species including grizzly and black bears, gray wolves, wolverines, lynx, elk, mule deer, whitetail 

deer, moose, bighorn sheep and mountain goats. Among its superlatives, the North 

Fork is believed to contain the greatest density of carnivores in North America and 

the greatest diversity of plant species in Canada including over 1,000 species of 

wildflowers. 

WILD & SCENIC RIVERS

The North Fork, along with the Middle Fork and South Fork of the Flathead, 

were added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in 1976 in order to protect their outstandingly remarkable values, which include recreation, scenery, historic sites, and unique fisheries and wildlife. In passing the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, Congress stated: 

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain 

selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, 

possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and 

wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in freeflowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be 

protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

The Congress declares that the established national policy of dams and 

other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States 

needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected 

rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water 

quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. 

In addition to the North Fork already being designated as a Wild and Scenic 

river, the U.S. Forest Service has found 113 miles of its tributaries to be eligible 

for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. These tributaries, all 

of which flow into the North Fork from the Whitefish Range, include Big Creek, 

Coal Creek, South Fork Coal Creek, Cyclone Creek, Gateway Creek, Hallowat 

Creek, Langford Creek, Mathias Creek, Moose Creek, Red Meadow Creek, Shorty 

Creek, South Fork Shorty Creek, Trail Creek, and Whale Creek (see Appendix B* 

for map showing all designated and eligible river reaches in the Flathead watershed). Under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Flathead National Forest’s 

current Forest Plan, these eligible tributaries are supposed to be managed as it they 

were already designated. 

OIL & GAS RESOURCES NEGLIGIBLE

While some public lands in the North Fork watershed were leased for oil and gas 

drilling in the 1980s, the Department of the Interior subsequently suspended all of 

those leases due to legal deficiencies pertaining to National Environmental Policy 

Act and Endangered Species Act compliance. Consequently, no oil and gas drilling 

has occurred on public lands in the North Fork watershed, and no economic impacts 

would occur if these leases were permanently withdrawn. 

There is recent precedent for Congress withdrawing certain outstanding public 

lands from mining and oil and gas leasing due to unacceptable impacts to water 

quality, air quality, fish and wildlife, scenery, and archeological sites. For example, 
69 

in 2006 Senator Baucus sponsored legislation that withdrew 500,000 acres of public 

lands along the Rocky Mountain Front from oil and gas leasing. In the Omnibus 

Public Lands Management Act of 2009, Congress withdrew 1.2 million acres of the 

Wyoming Range in northwest Wyoming from oil and gas leasing, and another 

101,000 acres in New Mexico’s Valle Vidal. 

RECENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN MONTANA & BRITISH COLUMBIA

Following more than three decades of highly contentious battles over proposed 

mining and oil and gas drilling in the headwaters of the North Fork, British Columbia announced in February 2010 its intention to withdraw its portion of the Flathead watershed from all forms of mining and oil and gas drilling. Shortly thereafter, 

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell signed an international agreement that committed the U.S. and Canada to, 

among other things: ‘‘Remove mining, oil and gas, and coal development as permissible land uses in the Flathead River Basin.’’ By passing S. 3075, Congress can uphold the promises Montana made in the agreement, while also increasing the likelihood that British Columbia will follow through on its commitments. 

SUGGESTED EXPANSION OF WITHDRAWAL AREA

While American Rivers fully supports the language and overarching goals of S. 

3075 and understands that the bill is targeted towards protecting the North Fork 

watershed, we believe it makes sense to expand the withdrawal area to include 

those lands previously leased in adjacent portions of the Middle Fork Flathead, 

South Fork Flathead and Whitefish Lake drainages (see map in Appendix C for recommended additions to withdrawal area). This would increase the area of land withdrawn by approximately 5,000-6,000 acres. Withdrawing these additional public 

lands from future mining and oil and gas drilling would help protect the Wild and 

Scenic Middle Fork and South Fork of the Flathead River, their outstanding native 

fish and wildlife resources, and local businesses which depend on clean water, 

healthy fish and wildlife, and spectacular scenery. 

CONCLUSION

Given the globally significant environmental values of the North Fork watershed 

including its pristine water quality, wild rivers, and unparalleled abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife; the non-existent role that mining and oil and gas drilling 

in the North Fork plays in the local economy; the widespread local support for permanently protecting the watershed from such activities; and the recent agreement 

signed by Montana and British Columbia; American Rivers strongly supports passage of S. 3075 with our recommended additions and commends Senators Baucus 

and Tester for taking a leadership role in introducing it. As our nation celebrates 

the 100-year anniversary of Glacier National Park this year, Congress could give the 

nation no greater gift than to protect the pristine waters that form its western 

boundary. 

Thank you for taking our testimony into consideration. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK STEARNS, CITY MANAGER, MIKE JENSON, MAYOR, JOHN

MUHLFELD, COUNCILOR, CITY OF WHITEFISH, WHITEFISH, MT, ON S. 3075 

On behalf of the City of Whitefish, Montana, we. are writing to express our support for S. 3075 North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010 that would withdraw 

future mining, oil and gas drilling, and geothermal development on USDA Forest 

Service lands in the North Fork Flathead River drainage in western Montana. In 

addition, we would encourage your offices to support expanding the geographic scope 

of S, 3075 to include federal lands located in the headwaters of Haskill Creek, a 

tributary to the Whitefish River in the Upper Flathead River watershed. The City 

of Whitefish, with a population of over 7,000 residents, derives its municipal water 

supply from surface water diversions located in Second Creek and Third Creek, two 

primary tributaries to Haskill Creek. A majority of the watershed area located upstream of these intake facilities, is comprised of Flathead National Forest lands. 

We support efforts that will result in the protection of both surface water and 

groundwater resources in the City’s municipal watershed. Withdrawing future mining, oil and gas drilling, and geothermal development on federal lands located in the 

headwaters of Haskill Creek will help achieve this goal, and further safeguard our 

community’s water supply for existing and future generations of Montanans. 

Thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to comment on this important matter. 
70 

STATEMENT OF BRIANNA RANDALL, WATER POLICY DIRECTOR, CLARK FORK

COALTION, MISSOULA, MT, ON S. 3075 

Thank you for the opportunity to present written testimony in support of S. 3075, 

the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010, introduced by Montana Senators 

Max Baucus and Jon Tester. The Clark Fork Coalition strongly believes that this 

important piece of legislation offers immense conservation value and provides natural resource benefits nationwide. 

The Clark Fork Coalition, founded in 1985, is a non-profit organization based in 

Missoula, Montana that represents 1,500 members united behind the cause to create healthy rivers and vibrant communities. We work to protect and restore the 

22,000-square-mile Clark Fork watershed in western Montana and northern Idaho. 

This legislation now before your committee, S. 3075 , will protect public lands and 

water quality in our basin by withdrawing future mining, oil and gas drilling, and 

geothermal development from the spectacular lands in the North Fork of the Flathead watershed. In addition to supporting this bill wholeheartedly, the Coalition 

also urges you to expand the scope of the legislation beyond the North Fork to include portions of the Middle and South Fork of the Flathead Rivers highlighted in 

the attached map. 

The Flathead River is the largest tributary in the Clark Fork River basin and is 

comprised of the South, Middle, and North Forks—world-renowned rivers draining 

unique mountain ranges, wilderness areas and parks (including the world’s first 

International Peace Park spanning Waterton-Glacier National Parks) before coming 

together to form the deep, clean waters of Flathead Lake. 

The North Fork watershed, which forms the western boundary of Glacier National 

Park and carries waters drained from the southeast corner of British Columbia, has 

long been threatened by Canadian mining interests seeking to exploit mineral resources. Proposed mining and drilling projects in the headwaters of the Flathead 

River prompted this recently-signed agreement, which was accompanied by legislation in British Columbia to make mining off-limits north of Glacier. 

This legislation will protect public lands, rivers and streams in the North Fork 

Flathead watershed by withdrawing rights for future mining, oil and gas drilling, 

and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service land. In effect, dormant mineral 

leases in this drainage could be swapped or bought out. As Senator Baucus has 

noted, companies will likely make more money by negotiating out of leases by avoiding the costly uphill battles that would face any new mining project proposed for 

this politically and environmentally sensitive landscape. 

The land and water resources in the Flathead provide vital economic benefits and 

ecological services for Montana as well as the Northern Rockies and Cascadia ecosystems. 

• Its headwaters flow through some of the richest and most diverse habitat in the 

lower 48, and supply clean, cold water to Flathead Lake, one of the most pristine lakes in the world. 

• The groundwater and streams provide drinking water for several communities 

in western Montana. 

• The trout streams, magnificent forests and towering peaks in the Flathead watershed offer unparalleled public recreational opportunities beloved by Coalition 

members and cherished by people nationwide. Tourists spend an estimated 

$150 million every year in the Flathead Valley. 

These are just a few of the reasons why the Clark Fork Coalition is supportive 

of S. 3075, and why we are also asking the Committee to consider protecting all of 

the headwaters of the Flathead River by adding the Middle Fork and South Fork 

into S. 3075. Like the North Fork, the public lands that drain into these two rivers 

also contain oil and gas leases that have been suspended since the mid-1980s. 

Though much of the Middle and South Fork lie within wilderness areas, these watersheds still have unprotected—and irreplaceable—lands within the Flathead National Forest that have existing mining leases and would benefit from this mineral 

withdrawal legislation. 

In conclusion, the Clark Fork Coalition and our members fully support S. 3075, 

and appreciate your time on this bill. We also believe that including mineral withdrawal for all three forks of the Flathead River in S. 3075 would create a complete 

package that ensures the Flathead watershed’s natural resources can sustain and 

recharge the Clark Fork watershed—and provide public recreation and natural resource amenities for the nation—for the long-haul. 

Thank you for considering our testimony. 
71 

STATEMENT OF DAVE HADDEN, DIRECTOR, HEADWATERS MONTANA, WHITEFISH, MT, 

ON S. 3075 

On behalf of our thousands of Montana members who cherish Glacier National 

Park, the North Fork Flathead River valley, and Flathead Lake, we write to express 

our organizations’ enthusiastic support for S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010, which withdraws future mining, oil and gas drilling, and geothermal development on US Forest Service land in Montana’s North Fork Flathead 

River watershed. 

We also ask that you slightly expand the boundary of S. 3075 to incorporate the 

remainder of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River to complete the protection of 

Glacier Park, the south flank of the Whitefish Range and Haskill Basin to protect 

recreation assets and Whitefish City’s water supply, and the Coram Canyon area 

to protect the Flathead River and recreation. The attached map illustrates our recommended boundary. 

Our organizations have worked for years to permanently protect the waters of the 

Transboundary Flathead River. We strongly commend your work and your cooperative efforts with the Governor’s office to quickly implement the provisions called for 

in the B.C.—Montana Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

With its headwaters in British Columbia and its downstream reaches in Montana, 

the Transboundary Flathead River Valley forms the core of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park and the Crown of the Continent ecosystem. This ecosystem supports an unmatched diversity of wildlife including the greatest density of grizzly 

bears in interior North America and some of the continent’s healthiest runs of native bull trout and cutthroat trout. The river also functions as a major tributary to 

the Flathead River that delivers pristine water to Flathead Lake. 

We view S. 3075 as a critical step towards implementing the MOU that calls for 

a ban all types of mining and oil and gas extraction in the Transboundary Flathead 

Valley. Only the United States Congress has the legislative authority to implement 

this agreement on federal lands on the Montana side of the border. Senate Bill 3075 

accomplishes this goal in part. 

Today, as we prepare to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Glacier National Park, 

the United States and Canada have an historic opportunity to permanently protect 

the North Fork of the Flathead River, Glacier National Park, and Flathead Lake 

for the next generation. Senate Bill 3075 represents a crucial component of this legacy and we look forward to working with you to secure its passage. 

STATEMENT OF CHUCK WHITSON, CHAIRMAN, AND PADDY TRUSLER, MEMBER, BOARD

OF LAKE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, POISON, MT, ON S. 3075 

The Lake County Commission supports Senate Bill 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010, which withdraws future mining, oil and gas drilling, 

and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service land in Montana’s North Fork 

Flathead River watershed. 

We also support slightly modifying the boundary of S. 3075 to incorporate the remainder of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River corridor to complete the protection of Glacier Park, the south flank of the Whitefish Range and Haskill Basin to 

protect recreation assets and Whitefish City’s water supply, and the Coram Canyon 

area to protect the Flathead River and recreation. The attached map shows the proposed boundary. 

The Flathead Watershed is a unique and special place, and Flathead Lake is an 

important asset to Lake County, our communities, our economy and our local businesses, as well as to the greater Flathead region, the state of Montana and beyond. 

The quality of Flathead Lake is dependent on the quality of the waters that feed 

it. The headwaters of this unique resource are inappropriate for mining and oil and 

gas development, which could significantly degrade its quality. S. 3075 will help protect Flathead Lake water quality and the economic health of our communities from 

these upstream threats. S. 3075 is an important step towards implementing the 

Montana-British Columbia agreement signed by Governor Schweitzer and Premier 

Campbell that bans mining and oil and gas extraction in the transboundary North 

Fork Flathead Valley. 

The United States and Canada have a historic opportunity to protect the North 

Fork of the Flathead River, Glacier National Park, and Flathead Lake for future 

generations. S. 3075 represents a crucial component of this legacy. Thank you for 

your work to protect Flathead Waters. 
72 

STATEMENT OF CAROLYN BEECHER, CHAIR, LAKE COUNTY DEMOCRATS, POISON, MT, 

ON S. 3075 

As citizens who value the quality of our water and our environment, Lake County 

Democrats urge you to attend to the matter of retiring the oil and gas leases in the 

Whitefish Range to the west of the North Fork of the Flathead River. From the perspective of the Canadians, we look quite foolish to be asking them to deny coal 

leases north of the border when we retain them just south of the border. 

As you well know, Glacier National Park has been declared endangered by the 

threat of coal mining, both open pit and coalbed methane, up the headwaters of the 

North Fork of the Flathead River. Pollutants flowing into this river, which forms 

Glacier’s western boundary and contributes to the waters of Flathead Lake, would 

heavily impact water quality, wildlife and fisheries in this pristine territory and 

alter the quality of life for residents of Lake County and the Salish/Kootenai Reservation. 

We ask you to take action, as you have previously proposed, to retire the oil and 

gas leases in the North Fork Flathead Watershed to demonstrate to British Columbia and Canada that the U.S. is willing to make sacrifices to protect Flathead 

waters and wildlife on our side of the international boundary. Retiring the leases 

will hopefully prompt B.C. to engage in further cross¥boundary discussions rather 

than taking unilateral action that would cause permanent damage. Since court action in the Conner v. Burford case has left the leases in limbo since 1988, we presume that retiring the North Fork leases can be accomplished in a simple and costeffective way. 

We also believe it is critical for Montana’s Congressional delegation to revive the 

dialogue between the U.S. and Canadian governments on this topic to ensure that 

B.C. engages Montana and both federal governments in full and open discussion of 

possible actions to resolve our concerns. We continue to support a comprehensive 

transboundary cumulative impacts analysis of coal and other potential resource extraction proposals. 

Thank you for making this important issue a priority for your time and attention. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN ENGEN, MAYOR, CITY OF MISSOULA, MISSOULA, MT, ON S. 3075 

Thank you for introducing S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 

2010. The City of Missoula supports this important piece of legislation and its goal 

of protecting public lands and water quality by withdrawing future mining, oil and 

gas drilling, and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service land. However, we 

urge you to expand the scope of the legislation beyond the North Fork to include 

all lands in the Flathead National Forest. 

A significant portion of property owners in the Flathead region are residents of 

and voters in Missoula. These citizens own cabins, second homes, or land along the 

lakes and streams and in the forests and mountains of the Flathead watershed. 

Like the North FOrk watershed, the public lands throughout the Flathead also contain oil and gas leases that have been suspended since the mid-1980s. 

We believe that the irreplaceable lands within the Middle and South Forks of the 

Flathead River watersheds that are now unprotected from mineral development 

would also benefit from this legislation. The land and water resources in the Flathead National Forest provide vital economic benefits and ecological services for 

Montanans, including drinking water for several communities, as well as unparalleled public recreational opportunities beloved by Missoula residents and cherished 

by people nationwide. 

Please consider protecting all of the headwaters of the Flathead River—the North, 

Middle, and South Fork drainages—by expanding the scope of S. 3075. By passing 

a ‘‘complete package,’’ this legislation will ensure that the headwaters of the Flathead River can sustain our communities for future generations of Montanans. 

Thank you again for introducing S. 3075. We fully support this legislation, and 

appreciate all of your work on behalf of Missoula’s residents and natural resources. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELE LANDQUIST, CHAIR, BILL CAREY, COMMISSIONER, JEAN CURTISS, COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MISSOULA, MT, ON S. 

3075 

Thank you for introducing S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 

2010. Missoula County supports this important piece of legislation and its goal of 

protecting public lands and water quality by withdrawing future mining, oil and gas 

drilling, and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service land. We also encour-
73 

age you to consider expanding the legislation beyond the North Fork to include the 

South and Middle Forks of the Flathead River. 

A significant portion of property owners in the Flathead region are residents of, 

and voters in, Missoula County. These citizens own cabins, second homes, or land 

along the lakes and streams and in the forests and mountains of the Flathead watershed. Like the North Fork watershed, the public lands in the South and Middle 

Forks contain oil and gas leases that have been suspended since the mid-1980’s. 

We believe that the irreplaceable lands within the Middle and South Forks of the 

Flathead River watersheds, that are now unprotected from mineral development, 

would also benefit from this legislation. The land and water resources in the Flathead watersheds provide vital economic benefits and ecological services for Montanans, including drinking water for several communities. It provides unparalleled 

public recreational opportunities beloved by County residents and cherished by people nationwide. 

Please consider protecting all of the headwaters of the Flathead River—the North, 

Middle, and South Fork drainages—by expanding the scope of S. 3075. By passing 

a ‘‘complete package,’’ this legislation will ensure that the headwaters of the Flathead River can sustain our communities for future generations of Montanans. 

Thank you again for introducing S. 3075. We fully support this legislation and its 

goals. We appreciate all of your work on behalf of Missoula County’s residents and 

natural resources. 

STATEMENT OF ROSE SCHWENNESEN, PRESIDENT, FLATHEAD COALITION, JOHN FREDERICK, PRESIDENT, NORTH FORK PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, DAPHNE HERLING, 

PRESIDENT, MONTANA WILDERNESS ASSOCIATION, JIM JENSEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION CENTER

On behalf of our thousands of Montana members who cherish Glacier National 

Park, the North Fork Flathead River valley, and Flathead Lake, we write to express 

our organizations’ enthusiastic support for S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010, which withdraws future mining, oil and gas drilling, and geothermal development on US Forest Service land in Montana’s North Fork Flathead 

River watershed. 

We also ask that you slightly expand the boundary of S. 3075 to incorporate the 

remainder of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River to complete the protection of 

Glacier Park, the south flank of the Whitefish Range and Haskill Basin to protect 

recreation assets and Whitefish City’s water supply, and the Coram Canyon area 

to protect the Flathead River and recreation. The attached map illustrates our recommended boundary. 

Our organizations have worked for years to permanently protect the waters of the 

Transboundary Flathead River. We strongly commend your work and your cooperative efforts with the Governor’s office to quickly implement the provisions called for 

in the B.C.—Montana Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

With its headwaters in British Columbia and its downstream reaches in Montana, 

the Transboundary Flathead River Valley forms the core of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park and the Crown of the Continent ecosystem. This ecosystem supports an unmatched diversity of wildlife including the greatest density of grizzly 

bears in interior North America and some of the continent’s healthiest runs of native bull trout and cutthroat trout. The river also functions as a major tributary to 

the Flathead River that delivers pristine water to Flathead Lake. 

We view S. 3075 as a critical step towards implementing the MOU that ban all 

types of mining and oil and gas extraction in the Transboundary Flathead Valley. 

Only the United States Congress has the legislative authority to implement this 

agreement on federal lands on the Montana side of the border. Senate Bill 3075 accomplishes this goal in part. 

Today, as we prepare to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Glacier National Park, 

the United States and Canada have an historic opportunity to permanently protect 

the North Fork of the Flathead River, Glacier National Park, and Flathead Lake 

for the next generation. Senate Bill 3075 represents a crucial component of this legacy and we look forward to working with you to secure its passage. 
74 

* Other undersigned groups: Frances Beinecke, President & CEO, Natural Resource Defense 

Council; Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club; Thomas Kiernan, President, National 

Parks Conservation Association; Daniel B Magraw Jr., President, Center for International Environmental Law; William H. Meadows, President, The Wilderness Society; Trip Van Noppen, 

President, Earthjustice; Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth; Larry Schweiger, President 

& CEO, National Wildlife Federation; Mark Tercek, President & CEO, The Nature Conservancy; 

Rebecca Wodder, President, American Rivers. 

STATEMENT OF MARGIE ALT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENT AMERICA,* ON S. 

3075 

On behalf of our millions of members who cherish America’s national parks, public lands and wild and scenic rivers, we are writing to express our organizations’ 

enthusiastic support for S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010, 

which would withdraw US Forest Service land in Montana’s North Fork Flathead 

River watershed from future mining, oil and gas drilling, and geothermal leasing 

and extraction. 

With its headwaters in British Columbia and its downstream reaches in Montana, 

the Transboundary Flathead River Valley forms the core of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park and the Crown of the Continent ecosystem. This ecosystem supports an unmatched diversity of wildlife including the greatest density of grizzly 

bears in interior North America and some of the continent’s healthiest runs of native bull trout and cutthroat trout. 

Passing S. 3075 is a critical step toward implementing the International Flathead 

Agreement signed last month by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer and British 

Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell to ban all types of mining and oil and gas extraction in the Transboundary Flathead Valley. Only the United States Congress 

has the legislative authority to implement this agreement on federal lands in the 

Montana portion of the watershed. 

The benefits of passing S. 3075 are national in scope. Not only is the Transboundary Flathead River Valley one of America’s last great wild places, but the snow-fed 

rivers and streams of Glacier National Park are the headwaters of North America. 

These rivers flow through 16 states and four Canadian provinces on their way to 

the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans. As the effects of climate change become more 

acute, the abundant source of clean water that emanates from Glacier’s snow-covered peaks will become even more valuable over the coming decades. 

Today, as we prepare to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Glacier National Park, 

the United States and Canada have an historic opportunity to protect the North 

Fork of the Flathead River, Glacier National Park, and the Crown of the Continent 

ecosystem for the next generation of North Americans. Passage of S. 3075 is absolutely vital to complete this legacy. 

Our organizations look forward to working with you, the United States Congress, 

and the Obama Administration to pass this important legislation. Please feel free 

to contact us if we may be of further assistance. 

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION, ON S. 3075 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony regarding S. 3075 The 

North Fork Watershed Protection Act—an important piece of legislation that will 

help preserve the international legacy of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. 

We thank Senators Baucus and Tester for introducing this legislation and take particular note of Senator Baucus’ thirty-year commitment to protect Glacier National 

Park and the North Fork of the Flathead Watershed from industrial mining, in both 

the Canadian headwaters and the Montana portions of the watershed. 

Since 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association (N PCA) has been the 

leading voice of the American people on behalf of our national parks. Our mission 

is to protect and enhance America’s National Park System for current and future 

generations. On behalf of our more than 330,000 members, we urge the Committee’s 

support and passage of S. 3075. 

Our national parks are home to some of the nation’s most iconic and sacred landscapes, monuments, and historic sites. They are among the most recognizable places 

in the world. In just three weeks, on May 11th, our nation will commemorate the 

100th anniversary of Glacier National Park. The passage of S. 3075 represents a 

historic opportunity for this Congress to build upon this legacy in its own right. 

Protecting over one million acres of public lands in northwest Montana, Glacier 

National Park is a crown jewel of the national park system. Established one hundred years ago ‘‘for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the United States,’’ 

Glacier’s sculpted peaks, mountain valleys, and clean waters are enjoyed by more 
75 

than two million people each year and provide crucial habitat for threatened species 

including the grizzly bear, bull trout, and Canada lynx. 

The natural and ecological benefits provided by Glacier National Park extend beyond the park’s boundaries. The snow-fed streams and mountain rivers of Glacier 

are the headwaters of North America, and are the source of rivers that flow into 

the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and Hudson Bay. Before reaching these bodies 

of water, these rivers flow through 16 States and four Canadian provinces. Glacier’s 

snow-covered peaks serve as a natural reservoir and essential source of clean 

water—which is one of our continent’s most important and essential resources. 

The park also plays a significant role in the regional economy of many Montana 

communities. More than two million visitors come to Glacier each year providing a 

direct economic impact that exceeds $150 million dollars. The Kalispell, Montana 

Chamber of Commerce estimates that 20 percent of the Flathead Valley’s economic 

activity is the direct result of Glacier National Park. The economic value of protecting Glacier’s unique and pristine waters and surrounding public lands through 

this legislation cannot be understated. 

S. 3075 WILL PROTECT THE WORLD’S FIRST INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK AND

STRENGTHEN U.S. RELATIONS WITH CANADA

In 1932, acts of the U.S. Congress and Canadian Parliament designated Glacier 

National Park and Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta, Canada as WatertonGlacier International Peace Park—the world’s first international peace park. This 

relationship of peace and goodwill has served as a source of inspiration for nations 

around the world and today there are more than one hundred international peace 

parks on five continents. 

The exceptional natural values of Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park are 

of global significance. National Geographic has deemed it ‘‘one of the most diverse 

and ecologically intact natural ecosystems in the temperate zones of the world,’’ and 

in 1995 Waterton-Glacier was added to the list of the United Nations Educational, 

Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) World Heritage sites in recognition of the peace park’s unique geology, abundant and diverse plant and animal 

communities, and glacial landscape. Earlier this year, the IUCN/World Heritage 

Center delivered a report to the governments of Canada and the United States that 

supported prohibiting mining in the Flathead Valley and in support of developing 

a conservation and wildlife management plan for the peace park. 

More recently, Governor Schweitzer and British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Cooperation on environmental protection, climate action, and energy. The MOU identifies broad areas for 

cooperation and partnership; and, most importantly, it also contains some very specific language regarding the North Fork: ‘‘BC and Montana commit to remove mining, oil and gas, and coal development as permissible land uses in the [North Fork].’’ 

The MOU must be implemented by changing applicable laws in both countries. In 

British Columbia, the Premier amended three different laws to ban mining in the 

Canadian Flathead the day after the signing of the MOU. For the U.S., S. 3075 is 

a crucial step forward in meeting the State of Montana’s responsibilities under the 

MOU and enjoys strong support from numerous communities, including the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce. 

TO BETTER SAFEGUARD GLACIER NATIONAL PARK AND THE CROWN OF THE CONTINENT

ECOSYSTEM, THE WITHDRAWAL BOUNDARY SHOULD BE EXPANDED

While NPCA strongly supports S. 3075, we also believe that this legislation can 

be improved with the inclusion of a boundary expansion to include the withdrawal 

of certain public lands from mining and mineral activities in the Wild & Scenic 

River corridor of the Middle Fork of the Flathead River, which is the primary access 

point for the more than 2 million people who visit Glacier each year. Inclusion of 

the Middle Fork corridor would ‘‘fill the gap’’ around Glacier National Park and prevent future inappropriate mining activity on critical wildlife habitat and front country area enjoyed by park visitors. 

We also believe that expanding the boundary to include the Haskill Basin is warranted since it is a source of municipal water drinking supply for more than 10,000 

local residents in the Whitefish area and also has tremendous conservation value. 

Here is an excerpt from the City of Whitefish’s letter to Senators Tester and Baucus: 

In addition, we would encourage your offices to support expanding the geographic scope of S. 3075 to include federal lands located in the headwaters 

of Haskill Creek, a tributary to the Whitefish River in the upper Flathead 

River watershed. ...Withdrawing future mining, oil and gas drilling, and 4 
76 

geothermal development on federal lands located in the headwaters of 

Haskill Creek will help achieve this goal, and further safeguard our community’s water supply for existing and future generations of Montanans. 

Furthermore, Winter Mountain Sports, I nc., which operates Whitefish Mountain 

Resort, supports S. 3075 and the inclusion of Haskill Basin. In the CEO’s letter to 

Senators Baucus and Tester, he states: 

In particular, I support your legislation S. 3075, the North Fork Watershed Protection Act of 2010 that would withdraw future mining, oil and gas 

drilling, and geothermal development on U.S. Forest Service land in the 

North Fork Flathead. As the leaseholder for the Whitefish Mountain Resort 

at Big Mountain (Winter Sports Inc.), we would also support including 

withdrawals for the Big Mountain and Haskill Basin in S. 3075. 

We understand that the existing, judicially suspended leases (in 1988) 

may in fact have little or no legal basis for being maintained. It would 

make sense, therefore, to resolve this issue at the perimeter of the North 

Fork watershed (the Big Mountain area). Winter Sports Inc. does not think 

oil, gas or mineral development on its lease area would be an appropriated 

use. 

As the attached map (areas in grey) demonstrates, these areas are technically outside the North Fork Watershed; however, they are important landscapes that drain 

into Flathead Lake, the largest natural body of freshwater in the western United 

States. These requested additions will afford vital protections to beloved recreational 

access sites and municipal drinking water. 

NPCA believes there is clear local support for these amendments to the legislation: businesses, individuals, and elected bodies have written to endorse S. 3075 and 

ask for the expansion of its withdrawal area to include nearby, connected lands. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski, with S. 3075 you have a tremendous opportunity to make a lasting contribution to the international legacy of Glacier National Park. Americans love our national parks, and this legislation affords 

the opportunity for our generation to give our kids and grandkids the opportunity 

to experience a wild and scenic Flathead River—just as we have. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES MYERS, CHAIRMAN, ELKO COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS, ELKO, NV, ON S. 3185 

In 2002 Elko County was approached by several different user groups that included motorized recreational vehicles. These groups were very frustrated and unsure as to continued uses of OHV / ATV uses and other types of motorized uses on 

public lands. The Board of County Commissioners instructed staff to locate potential 

areas of public lands that would be acceptable to the OHV / ATV uses. At that time, 

Elko County began to identify several areas of public lands that could provide a specific location for motocross racing, ATV / OHV use and other motorized off road use. 

The county working directly with the BLM expended many staff hours identifying 

potential lands. Elko County and the BLM identified and studied several areas as 

to potential negative and positive impact. The West Elko site was the final choice 

due to its minimal negative impacts, indirect proximity to the City of Elko and direct access to adjacent Interstate 80. The proposed location is indirectly adjacent to 

an existing R&PP lease for recreation purposes, the Elko County Public Shooting 

Range. The two uses will complement each other and present no conflict. The shooting range has been in use for over twenty years and is currently in the Patent 

Lands Act process. The R&PP lease application for the West Elko Motocross site 

was filed with the BLM in June of 2004. To date action is still pending from the 

BLM due to a lack in Realty staff in the local office. 

In 2009 the staffs of Senator Reid and Senator Ensign were made aware of the 

issue and contacted Elko County to provide assistance. Both staffs provided options 

to acquire the public lands and subsequently the West Elko site was included with 

the Te-Moak Tribe of the Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada public lands request. 

Senator Reid and Senator Ensign’s staffs worked very diligently in assisting the TeMoak Tribe and Elko County with these proposed actions. 

The many user groups are awaiting the availability of the public lands and have 

committed to the development of the land for multiple users of OHV, ATV, 

Motocross, BMX / Mountain Bicycling, Oval Track Auto Racing, Four Wheel Drive 

Vehicles and many others. The development of this area will also provide positive 

economic impacts to the City of Elko and Elko County due to the close availability 

of a facility for sanctioned motocross and OHV / ATV events. 
77 

The local BLM has advised Elko County that the current R&PP Lease Application 

could require an additional five to seven years to process. The application was submitted to the BLM in 2004, six years ago, with little or no action to date. Should 

the application require an additional five to seven years it is quite possible the community will lose their interest in the site and revert back to other less attractive 

alternatives including potentially causing nuisances on public lands. The proposed 

multiple use OHV / ATV facility is very much desired by the public of Elko County 

to promote a central location for these specific uses and supported by BLM to reduce 

motorized degradation of public lands. The Elko County Board of Commissioners is 

in unanimous and strong support of the proposed S. 3185 and sincerely appreciates 

the involvement and hard work of Senators Reid and Ensign to make this a reality 

for its citizens. 

Æ