U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

49–652 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

HEARING ON H.R. 3705, A BILL TO PROVIDE

FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS

IN THE IVANPAH VALLEY, NEVADA, TO THE

CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 23, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–91

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

TODD HULL, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel

GARY GRIFFITH, Professional Staff
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held June 23, 1998 .................................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Ensign, Hon. John E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Nevada ....................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Additional material submitted by ............................................................ 4

Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F.H., a Delegate in Congress from American

Samoa ............................................................................................................ 1

Gibbons, Hon. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Reid, Hon. Harry, a Senator in Congress from the State of Nevada,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 27

Statements of witnesses:

Culp, Pete, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection,

Bureau of Land Management ...................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23

Walker, Randall H., Director, Department of Aviation, Clark County,

Nevada ........................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 24

Additional material supplied:

Innes, Charlotte, Los Angeles, California, prepared statement of ............... 26

The Wilderness Society, prepared statement of ............................................. 26
(1)

HEARING ON H.R. 3705, A BILL TO PROVIDE

FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS

IN THE IVANPAH VALLEY, NEVADA, TO THE

CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS,COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:10

a.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James

Hansen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] Now, we will proceed to hear H.R. 3705.

H.R. 3705, introduced by Congressman Jim Gibbons of Nevada,

would provide for the sale of certain public lands in Ivanpah Valley, Nevada to the Clark County Department of Aviation. This

land, approximately 6,395 BLM acres, would eventually become a

new airport facility and surrounding infrastructure. The Las Vegas

Valley is the one of the fastest-growing metropolitan areas in the

country. About 50 percent of the annual visitors to Las Vegas fly

to McCarran Airport. This ratio is expected to rise even further as

Vegas increasingly becomes an international travel destination.

McCarran Airport is quickly reaching capacity.

The new airport facility is needed in the Las Vegas area. There

are several reasons that the Ivanpah Valley is an ideal place for

this airport. The area is far enough away from McCarran Airport

and the Nellis Air Force Base to avoid airspace capacity restraints,

and yet it’s close enough to serve the metropolitan area. The area

is right next to the I–15 and the Union Pacific Railroad, providing

good transportation connections. And, finally, there are minimal

environmental problems with the site.

I understand that the administration has a few concerns with

this legislation, but recognize the need for a new airport, and are

willing to work with us to make this happen. I appreciate that and

look forward to working with the administration. I now recognize

the gentleman from America Samoa.

STATEMENT OF HON. ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, A DELEGATE

IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3705 provides for the

conveyance of certain public lands in Nevada to the Clark County
2

Department of Aviation for use as an airport and related commercial development. I understand that the Bureau of Land Management will testify that they have a number of concerns with the bill

as currently written. Evidently, there are several land use conflicts

with the proposed airport location. These conflicts include mining

claims, grazing, utility corridors, a designated special recreation

management area, and a desert tortoise translocation area. I also

understand there are the questions in the math of determination

of fair market value and with the authority.

Mr. Chairman, the questions on H.R. 3705 need to be resolved.

I appreciate the presence of our witnesses today and look forward

to their insight on this proposed legislation.

Mr. HANSEN. According to my watch, there’s 1 minute and 20

seconds, and then we’ll hear from Mr. Jim Gibbons; that is if he’s

very punctual. If he isn’t, we’ll go to our witnesses. I appreciate you

gentlemen for coming up to the table.

[Pause.]

Time has expired. With that in mind, we will turn to our witnesses: Mr. Pete Culp, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection at the Bureau of Land Management and Mr.

Randall H. Walker, director at the Department of Aviation, Clark

County, Nevada. Mr. Culp.

STATEMENT OF PETE CULP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT

Mr. CULP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3705, the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public

Lands Transfer Act that provides for the transfer of certain public

lands to Clark County, Nevada to the Clark County Department of

Aviation. As you indicated in the introductory statement, the concept of a new airport in this location certainly appears to have

merit and there certainly appears to be a need for a facility like

this.

Also, as you indicated, we do have some concerns with the bill

as presently drafted. H.R. 3705 provides for the conveyance of

lands from Jean, Nevada to the Clark County Department of Aviation over a period of 20 years. The lands are to be used for an airport facility and associated industrial and commercial development.

Lands would actually be conveyed under the bill over this 20-year

period of time on an as needed basis to the Department of Aviation,

but as the bill is written that would be based on a market value

to be established by an appraisal to be conducted within 6 months

of the passage of the legislation. The lands will be withdrawn from

entry under the mining laws.

Very quickly, our concerns relate to conflicts that will be created

with certain existing land use in the general area. There are a variety of third party rights. For example, one section is encumbered

by mining claims; the entire area is within a grazing allotment;

there are two State of Nevada mineral material sale sites for gravel, and there’s some major power lines through the site.

The issue of desert tortoise habitat that was mentioned is very

much dependent on a precise location of the airport. There is an

area west of Interstate 15 that is a translocationsite for tortoise
3

that are affected by developments elsewhere in Clark County. The

most recent map which is actually an aerial photograph that we’ve

seen of the proposed airport site would avoid that area and thus

minimize the impact to tortoise. The earlier maps showed part of

the property west of Interstate 15.

The area has a special recreation management area for off-road

vehicle activities between Primm and Jean that would need to be

relocated. There’s presumably an issue of at least dust that would

be created by that type of existing use that might interfere with

airport operations. And the area is currently used for sky diving

which I understand is out of the small airport at Jean which would

be also impacted.

Another concern is the conveyance of lands at less than fair market value. Very quickly, the issue there is that the appraisal would

be done within 6 months of passage of the bill, but the actual conveyances could extend out for a period of 20 years during which

land values could change significantly. I’ll say quickly, that we recognize that some of that change would be attributable to the development of the airport itself, but I believe there are some solutions

to that issue that could be worked out.

And, significantly, I mentioned that there have been several

maps provided to us of the facilities, or the proposed facility. There

is a recent court date that’s referenced in my longer statement that

makes the issue of a map very problematic. We need an officially

filed map with clear delineation of the boundaries.

But, in summary, I believe these issues are amenable to some

work and resolution between the Subcommittee, BLM, and Clark

County, and we can work together to mitigate or resolve the issues

and come to agreement on a suitable location, boundaries, and provisions. That concludes my testimony, and I’ll be happy to answer

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Culp may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you.

The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, do you have an opening statement you would like to make regarding your colleague’s

bill, Mr. Gibbons?

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; yes, I do. I’ll make it

brief and just ask unanimous consent that my whole statement be

made part of the record.

Mr. HANSEN. So ordered.

Mr. ENSIGN. I’d like to make just a couple of comments. First of

all, this is my colleague Jim Gibbon’s bill, and it is something,

though, that the entire congressional delegation from the State of

Nevada. This is brought to us by Clark County and McCarran Airport. They would like to see as a reliever airport as well as, obviously, to bring in freight and cargo from other parts of the world

into this area for several reasons as a reliever airport to McCarran

International Airport.

First of all, this is one of the fastest growing airports in the

world, and it is quickly reaching capacity, and as a reliever airport,
4

this Ivanpah Valley is a perfect location because there’s very little,

as far as environmental, concerns, because you’re talking, first of

all, outside of the air district—I guess you would call it—for the

Las Vegas Valley. This is on the other side of the mountains from

the Las Vegas Valley, and so many of the environmental concerns

are quite a bit less than with this airport out in the Ivanpah Valley.

A couple of the other points that I would like to make that the

BLM brought up. First of all, as far as the grazing rights are concerned that are on the land, the grazing, from what I understand,

are controlled—they’re owned by the county itself, so I don’t think

that the grazing rights are a major concern with this land. Second

of all, I do have something I’d like to make part of the record: it’s

a letter from the Department of Transportation. The BLM talked

about that the Department of Transportation has some mineral

rights in there for a gravel pit, and we have a letter here from the

Assistant Director of Planning, Thomas Fronapfel, and he says,

‘‘We have reviewed the notice the landing area proposed, and this

proposal does not appear to conflict with Department facilities or

projects.’’ And then it says, ‘‘Should you have any questions,’’ I’d

like to have this made part of the record, because they’re fine with

the bill.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

LETTER FROM MR. THOMAS J. FRONAPFEL TO JOHN PFEIFER

DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION,

CARSON CITY,

NEVADA

JOHN PFEIFER,

Manager,

831 Mitten Road, Room 210,

Burlingame,

California.

Dear Mr. Pfeifer:

We have reviewed the Notice of Landing Area Proposal Ivanpah Valley Airport,

97-SFO-97-NRA. This proposal does not appear to conflict with Department facilities or projects.

Should you have any questions, please contact the office of Aviation Planning at

(702) 888-7464.

Sincerely,

THOMAS J. FRONAPFEL, P.E.,

Assistant Director—Planning.

Mr. ENSIGN. The second thing is—and I’m glad that you recognize as far as the desert tortoise habitat that it is on the other side.

The translocation area is on the other side of I–15, and I think that

working—we can make sure that the details are worked out to

make sure that we do have, obviously, the desert tortoise and the

habitat for that is very important to all residents of Clark County,

and we want to make sure that nothing gets in that way, but, from

what I understand, this bill, as written now, the current form it,

will not have any problems with the desert tortoise because of the

translocation area being on the other side of the freeway.

And, last, let me just say that I think that this bill has been very

well thought out from all of the members of the delegation supporting it, and this isn’t really something that was driven by the delegation. This was something that driven by local people coming to
5

us and asking us to support this, and similar to the Ensign-Bryan

lands bill that we brought through this Subcommittee, when you

have local input, you usually get good legislation, and that’s exactly

what we’ve received here, and I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,

for having this hearing on Mr. Gibbon’s bill.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ensign follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NEVADA

Good morning, Chairman Hansen and other colleagues, it is a pleasure to be with

you today in addressing a very important issue to the people of Nevada. H.R. 3705,

introduced by Congressman Jim Gibbons and myself provides for the sale of certain

public lands within the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada to the Clark County Department

of Aviation.

Today, the Las Vegas Valley is the fastest growing metropolitian area in the country with about 5,000 people move there each month, and millions of visitors each

year. About 50 percent of these visitors arrive by way of McCarran International

Airport. As the valley continues to expand, and the number of international visitors

climbs, it becomes apparent that McCarran Field is nearing its capacity.

H.R. 3705 would designate approximately 6,500 acres of BLM land for gradual

sale to the Clark County Department of Aviation, some of the land will become a

secondary airport serving the needs of both passengers and cargo for the Las Vegas

metropolitan area, and the rest of the land would be used to provide surrounding

infrastructure and for other industrial purposes.

The Ivanpah Valley location is ideal for many reasons. First, it is convenient to

Las Vegas, but far enough away as not to pose a problem to current air traffic patterns with McCarran Field and Nellis Air Force Base. Second, the location has the

best topography and orientation of any of the possible sights for an ancillary airport

facility, and it is accessible to both I-15 and the Union Pacific railroad. And finally,

there are minimal environmental concerns with this proposed sight.

H.R. 3705 provides relief to the growth issue that faces the Las Vegas Valley, it

allievates overcrowding at McCarran Field while supporting the economy of Southern Nevada with new jobs and additional revenues.

—————

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to make the public aware of

my relationship with Circus Circus Enterprises. As we all know, the legislation before us today proposes the sale of federally owned land to the Clark County Department of Aviation for the development of a reliever airport in the Ivanpah Valley.

The location of this airport will be roughly six miles from Jean, Nevada where Circus Circus Enterprises owns and operates two hotel-casinos. My father, Michael Ensign, is Chief Executive Officer of Circus Circus Enterprises.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Ensign.

Mr. Walker, we’ll turn to you.

STATEMENT OF RANDALL H. WALKER, DIRECTOR,

DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Randall

Walker. I am the Director of Aviation for the Clark County Department of Aviation——

Mr. HANSEN. Pull that mike just a tad closer to you, please, sir.

Thank you.

Mr. WALKER. [continuing] in Las Vegas, Nevada. I appear today

to testify in strong support of H.R. 3705 which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey for fair market value certain lands

in the Ivanpah Valley to the Clark County Department of Aviation

to allow us a site for future construction of an airport to serve

southern Nevada.

The role of an airport in any community is to provide the airport

infrastructure and facilities necessary to enable any and all carriers to serve the community if they choose to do so. Because Las
6

Vegas has been one of the fastest growing airports in the Nation,

keeping pace with airline passenger demand has been a significant

challenge. McCarran International Airport passenger traffic since

1990 has grown 64 percent. Half the visitors who come to Las

Vegas now come by air. Air traffic into Las Vegas has statistically

followed the growth of the hotel industry and the construction of

hotel rooms. Before the year 2000, Las Vegas will add approximately 20,000 hotel rooms to the inventory. We estimate that every

1,000 hotel rooms will generate about 275,000 visitors or with the

20,000 hotel rooms, approximately 6 million new tourists, half of

whom will pass through the McCarran to get into Las Vegas.

Fifty years ago, in 1948, Clark County acquired McCarran Field

on South Las Vegas Boulevard. This once small air field out in the

desert is now surrounded by a vibrant and unique city. We are

proud of the facilities we have constructed on McCarran Airport

and with the opening of the new D terminal this last week, we will

provide sufficient facilities to carry us approximately 5 years into

the future. But after the fades and D gate is completed, we will not

have realistic expansion opportunities to add additional terminal

facilities at our airport.

We now have four air carrier-capable runways at McCarran, and

that is all that we will ever be able to build. Fortunately, with our

existing runways there is sufficient air field capacity to allow for

additional short and mid-term growth. However, once that growth

gets above 600,000 annual aircraft operations—we’re currently at

474,000 annual operations—our runway taxiway system will

produce cumulative delays that exceed an average of 40 minutes

per aircraft operation.

It is easy to understand why the airlines who service the Las

Vegas are very sensitive to the incremental system cost which results from departure and arrival delays. Increasing delays means

higher operational costs attributable to wasted fuel burned on the

taxiway; added crew time and additional delays at connecting airports. As the operator of McCarran Airport, we have to be sensitive

to delay costs that make it difficult for airlines to add additional

service or to maintain the existing service that they already provide.

For us to maintain the viability of long-term airline service to

Las Vegas, we need to find an alternative primary commercial

service airport to McCarran. Most of the airspace north of

McCarran is under the control of the Department of Defense due

to the ever-increasing military operations at Nellis Air Force Base.

This has limited our search for new sites to south of Las Vegas.

The only viable site that has adequate airspace is about 22 miles

south of McCarran in the Ivanpah Valley.

Ivanpah Valley is the only site that will allow for a full precision

instrument approach that will not result in airspace conflicts with

the traffic at McCarran. This site, with the potential for a northsouth conflux of parallel runways, is unusual because it is both flat

and devoid of mountainous terrains off the ends of the future runways. It is also located in close proximity to Interstate 15 and UniPacific Railroad which will enhance intermobile transportation of

cargo opportunities.
7

It is our plan to develop this airport as needed by the growth at

McCarran. It is likely that the first developments to move this new

airport would be cargo and charter operations with scheduled airline service eventually following as traffic continues to grow at

McCarran. Notwithstanding the opportunity for us to obtain Federal land for free under section 505 of the Airport and Airways Improvement Act, there is a significant bureaucratic process involved

that would take years to complete.

Now, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are very

anxious to secure this site so that we can do the necessary planning and environmental work, and we are willing to pay fair market value for the land which is just a bit over 6,000 acres. This new

airport is absolutely critical for the Clark County Department of

Aviation to fulfill its mission of never allowing the lack of airport

infrastructure to be an impediment to people coming to Las Vegas;

to the Grand Canyon, and to other destinations in the color country

around Las Vegas.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I’d be glad to answer any questions the Committee may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Questions from the panel?

Mr. Faleomavaega is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to ask

Mr. Culp from the Bureau of Land Management a couple of questions. How many tortoise are we talking about here?

Mr. CULP. How many tortoise?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes.

Mr. CULP. I saw the figures for the number relocated to that relocation area west of Interstate 15, and I believe it was 1,200. Again,

as I noted and Mr. Hansen noted, the last map which was actually

an aerial photograph that we received would avoid the tortoise relocation area.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I notice in your statement you mention that

you don’t even have a map. Am I correct the State of Nevada has

not even submitted a map formation of this Valley? They’re asking

for about 6,000 acres, and I understand the location is about 22

miles south of the McCarran Airport? Is this under the Bureau of

Land Management jurisdiction?

Mr. CULP. The area is public land under our jurisdiction now,

yes. And the concern on the map is that actually we have several

maps that are fairly large scale. I believe two maps and one aerial

photograph with boundaries delineated. The boundaries are somewhat different between those maps, and both we and the Congress

would need a definitive map filed with us to move forward and

avoid some future legal problems.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I notice you cited at least about 10 different

areas that you question. I would like to ask Mr. Walker, I’m sure

our good friend from Nevada would not have introduced this legislation if there was at least some preliminary discussions or dialogue between the BLM and the State of Nevada, and, Mr. Walker,

I’m sure you’re well aware of some of the considerations that BLM
8

is raising now before the Subcommittee. I gather that this bill was

introduced without the knowledge of BLM in any way or form?

Mr. WALKER. No, that’s not correct. We’ve had extensive conversations with our local BLM offices. I met with Mr. Pat Shay personally to indicate that we were going to introduce the bill; to give

him a copy; I gave him a map myself. And, so we’ve tried to make

sure that we’ve covered all our bases and done our homework and

consulted with everybody that we felt it was important to consult

with before the bill was introduced.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, you’ve done all this with the office of the

BLM in Nevada, but, apparently, it has not reached Washington.

Is this correct, Mr. Culp?

Mr. CULP. No, it’s reached Washington, and there certainly have

been consultations in Nevada. I think our position is that because

of some of the issues that I mentioned and the lack of a really definitive map, that there’s more work that we need to do together.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, Mr. Culp, I’m a little surprised, and

I’m sure that Mr. Walker would not have made these considerations, and I wanted to ask you, you’re suggesting here also that

BLM and the FAA be given time to consider what would be the

most appropriate area, and I’d like to ask you if the BLM and the

FAA would be assigned the task of figuring out a location or size

for an additional airport in Nevada, how long do you think this will

take?

Mr. CULP. We’re prepared to move very quickly on that. I can’t

speak for FAA, but I would say that we recognize that Congress

has an interest in this bill and may want to move quickly, and we

are prepared to do that. I think we’re talking about a matter of a

few weeks probably.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I’d like to ask Mr. Walker, how long have

you been holding consultations with the BLM office in Nevada?

Mr. WALKER. I think we’ve been working on this for a couple of

years.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My God.

Mr. WALKER. And, as I indicated, we met Mr. Pat Shay, the Director of BLM, here in Washington several months ago to give him

a copy of the bill and a copy of the map which has changed slightly

since we initially gave that to him, but as far as the issues that

have been raised by BLM, we’re well aware of these issues. We

don’t think any one of them is insurmountable. For example—I

could go through each one of them—the grazing rights, if you’ve

seen the dry lakes, there’s not a whole lot of foliage there in the

first place, and, second, the county owns the grazing rights, and

this would not be a conflict, and grazing around an airport outside

the parameter fence is not a problem, so there shouldn’t be any

conflict, and we could go through each one of these issues: the

power lines, we know where they’re at, and they’re not in conflict

with the alignment of the runways; the desert tortoise habitat, we

have a letter from Paul Seltzer, the attorney that has been retained by the county to deal with desert tortoise habitat issues, and

he indicates that it doesn’t appear that this is a concern at all with

the translocation area; the transportationsite—the Department of

Transportation is there on the west side of the freeway, and we’ve

got a letter from them indicating it’s not a problem; the sky diving
9

operation, that’s in an airport we manage and control. We understand those issues very well, and we would not do anything to jeopardize those operations. We need to accommodate all aviation within southern Nevada, and we think we do a very good job of doing

that.

In terms of the fair market value, I think we have an opportunity—we could go through a bureaucratic process and ask for it

for free. We’re asking to pay current fair market value, but that

land out there right now, probably the value is very limited relative

to the rest of the land in southern Nevada, and what we don’t want

to do is to bring all the infrastructure in there and create a huge

value for land that now has minimal value and then turn around

and have to pay the higher value that we’ve created for the land.

That’s why we’re asking for it the way we are.

And, so we think that these issues—in terms of the off-highway

vehicle use, for example, that’s not an incompatible use around an

airport, and the dust that would be created by those vehicles, certainly, is a lot less than the wind, the dust that the wind creates

in Las Vegas. We have that all of the time, and so that’s not a

problem.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, Mr. Walker, my time is running out,

but I would like to give some very strong advice to Mr. Culp that

this issue has been ongoing and been under discussion for years.

This is not something that has just came over, over night, and so

your mentioning of all these areas like the grazing, the mining, the

tortoise, the special recreation management, it seems like you’re

throwing a smoke screen here and not really making a good faith

effort to work with the State officials that the BLM does show good

faith in working together with the officials of the State of Nevada.

I’m really, frankly, disappointed that these issues are brought

forth, and it sounds like you were never being apprised of this

three or months ago, but the fact that this has been under discussion for years, I’m a little disappointed, Mr. Culp, that the BLM

is giving the members of this Subcommittee this kind of information. I’m sorry, my time is up.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Walker, Mr. Culp said that Clark

County is obligated under the terms of a Federal grant to continue

operations at Jean Airport. I’m assuming that Jean Airport is a

general aviation airport?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, we created it as a sports aviation facility for

gliders and aerobatics and things of that nature.

Mr. HANSEN. In the event that this other one went in, what

would the airspace problem be? Would there be—have overlapping

traffic patterns? Would we have space that is adequate for both of

them?

Mr. WALKER. Yes. Jean is about six nautical miles from the

Ivanpah Valley site. We have a general aviation airport, called

Henderson Executive Terminal which is six miles from McCarran

Airport. One is a visual flight rules airport; the other’s an instrument flight rules, and we developed the airspace so that they both

operate compatibly.

Mr. HANSEN. What is the altitude of the traffic pattern at Jean

Airport?
10

Mr. WALKER. Jean Airport has visual flight rules, so it has to

stay under the Class B airspace.

Mr. HANSEN. It’s all under VFR?

Mr. WALKER. Yes.

Mr. HANSEN. In the event the southern one went in, would that

necessitate transponders for general aviation at Jean Airport?

Mr. WALKER. No.

Mr. HANSEN. Do they have transponders now?

Mr. WALKER. No, not at Jean.

Mr. HANSEN. You don’t think it would?

Mr. WALKER. No, I don’t believe so. We don’t have any——

Mr. HANSEN. Would you mind giving me some stuff on the FAA

about that?

Mr. WALKER. We don’t have any instrument approaches now at

Henderson or North Las Vegas.

Mr. HANSEN. The reason I say that is Salt Lake—where I’ve

spent many hours flying—we all had to put transponders in when

Salt Lake International got a little bigger. So, Sky Park, which is

between Ogden and Salt Lake; Airport No. 2, which is south of

International, and the others, all of those, had to go to transponders which is, frankly, a pain.

Mr. WALKER. Well, we have very good weather in Las Vegas. I

think we have 360 days a year where you can operate under VFR

rules, and so it’s not a real problem for our airports. The only time

we have—McCarran is the only place now where they can do actual

instrument landing training, and so we’re trying to find a location

at one of our sites where we could have, actually, a transponder

site for general aviation to improve the—to, basically, move those

operations off of McCarran. But we’re working now with the FAA,

with the local tower and the regional people, and the military. We

have a committee that’s looking at all of the airspace in southern

Nevada to come up with the best airspace possible, and the

Ivanpah Valley is one of the issues that’s on the table. So, we’re

working with everybody to come up with the airspace allocation

which serves the needs of everybody—the military, the general

aviation, and the commercial aircraft.

Mr. HANSEN. Would Jean Airport have to change their practice

area which is allocated to them by the FAA?

Mr. WALKER. In terms of the sky divers, there may have to be

a reallocation of where their jumps are. We just reallocated them

from the northwest, because they used to operate out of north Las

Vegas, but because of the significant development in the northwest

which was precipitated by land exchanges by the BLM, we had to

move the sky divers to another area. They’re very important to us,

and we will find them a location to operate somewhere. We have

8,000 square miles of land in southern Nevada, 82 percent which

is owned by the Federal Government. Certainly, there is a site

close to Jean where the sky divers can practice their trade in

southern Nevada.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Culp, you gave a laudatory reason why the

BLM has difficulty with this. You said that there’s historical offhighway vehicle use. Now, I commend you for this, but I’m just

kind of curious in a way, you’re defending off-highway vehicle use

on public lands in this bill, however, over in the State of Utah—
11

your next door neighbor there—you folks are trying to stop it. Why

the inconsistency?

Mr. CULP. Mr. Chairman, we go through a planning process for

each area to determine where that kind of use is compatible with

the resource values in the area—I am not immediately familiar

with the area in Utah that you’re speaking about—but that’s how

the process works, and that’s how these in Nevada were designated

as appropriate for off-highway vehicles.

Mr. HANSEN. Frankly, being somewhat familiar between the two

States, I cannot see much difference. Every place there’s off-road

use in BLM under H.R. 1500, proposed by some of our environmental friends, BLM has gone with them lock, stock, and barrel,

and some of that area has been used for off-road vehicles for as

long as I can remember. So, it would, in my opinion, fall under the

highway and historical use. Anyway, I would really be curious to

know the answer to that when you get to it.

Mr. CULP. I’ll be happy to look into it.

Mr. HANSEN. Would you, specifically, personally, send me something on that?

Mr. CULP. I certainly will.

Mr. HANSEN. Don’t send it here. Send it to my personal staff at

2466 Rayburn. I would like to read it.

I promised earlier that, when the sponsor of the bill arrived, that

we would turn to him for his opening statement. So, honoring that

obligation, Mr. Gibbons.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your

kind patience in regard to my tardiness, and I do apologize for

being late. In order to make this as expedited as possible, I would

ask unanimous consent to have my opening remarks submitted for

the record rather than be said.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman:

I would like to thank you for allowing this Committee to hear H.R. 3705, the

Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act.

As you may know, Las Vegas, Nevada, is the fastest growing area in the United

States, and because 87 percent to 92 percent of Nevada is owned by the Federal

Government, it makes expansion for many of our communities almost impossible.

More than 20,000 new homes were built in the Las Vegas Valley last year, and

this influx of new residents has put great pressure on the infrastructure of the entire region.

Fortunately, H.R. 3705 addresses the issue of expansion and infrastructure and

prepares Clark County for the 21st century.

As Las Vegas continues to grow a greater demand is put on its airport.

Currently, passengers traveling through Las Vegas’s McCarran Airport account

for approximately 50 percent of the annual visitors to Las Vegas.

And as the Valley’s resorts increasingly become international travel destinations,

this percentage can be expected to climb putting a burdensome strain on McCarran

airport.

That is why this legislation is so important to the Las Vegas Valley.

The new Ivanpah Valley Airport will attract air cargo flights that now wish to

use McCarran, thus freeing-up McCarran’s airspace and runway capacity.
12

The new airport will also serve as an alternative for charter flight operations,

where the passengers can be bused to downtown Las Vegas in a short amount of

time.

Likewise, the geographical location for this airport is also well suited.

The proposed Ivanpah Valley Airport site is located on approximately 6,650 acres

of federally owned land thirty miles south of the Las Vegas metropolitan area.

Ivanpah will be far enough away from McCarran Airport and Nellis Air Force

Base to be free of flight restrictions.

It has a close proximity to Interstate Highway 15 and the Union Pacific Railroad

which will provide excellent intermodal and multimodal opportunities for passenger

and air cargo activities.

And lastly, it is surrounded by vacant Federal land which will give Clark County

an opportunity to protect the Airport from incompatible land uses.

As McCarran reaches its practical capacity, H.R. 3705 becomes necessary to accommodate the growing Las Vegas Valley and its air passenger and air cargo industry.

With that Mr. Chairman, I would once again like to thank you for holding this

hearing on the Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act, a bill that is very

important to Southern Nevada and its future.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the opportunity

to exercise a question here of the panel if it’s within your will.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. I wanted to address the issue of mining claims to Mr. Culp. How many of the mining claims that you

are concerned about are currently active in the area?

Mr. CULP. I don’t have that information, Mr. Gibbons. There’s

one section of the land that has claims on it.

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes, but isn’t it true that those mining claims are

inactive?

Mr. CULP. I’ll be very happy to check that. If that’s the information you have——

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I would also wish that this Committee accede to your request in submitting, perhaps, written questions that they can answer and provide back for us detailed explanations and answers to those written questions in regard to the

mining claim issue.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back the questions and have

the written question submitted for the record.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank the gentleman from Nevada. The gentleman

from Minnesota, Mr. Vento.

Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to come by

and participate in the markup, but I guess you reached some accord that we’re going to work on it further.

Mr. HANSEN. That’s true. We decided it was a work in process,

and we reported it out without recommendation to the Full Committee.

Mr. VENTO. I understand that. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Culp, I think

that Representative Gibbons is asking whether any of these mining

claims are patented claims? Or don’t you know that either?

Mr. CULP. I don’t know that either.

Mr. VENTO. OK. Well, I think that would be sort of a telling

point, because that means, of course, they’ve been perfected, and

there’s cost and maybe some value to them.

Mr. GIBBONS. Will the gentleman yield for a second?

Mr. VENTO. Yes, sure.
13

Mr. GIBBONS. A patented mining claim, of course, is private property, and would, therefore, not be under the jurisdiction of BLM,

because that’s the same patent you would get for a fee simple——

Mr. VENTO. None of these have been patented——

Mr. GIBBONS. So, that would be the answer to your question in

that regard, but I appreciate your input.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I just would like to know what the status is.

I thought, perhaps, if they had reached that point, but I didn’t

know they were distinguishing between claims. Obviously, you

have to buy them out then, but apparently that won’t be necessary.

The overall issue here is, first of all, you suggest in your statement you don’t know if it’s 2,000 or 20,000 acres, Mr. Culp. Mr.

Walker has said it’s 6,000 acres. Since we don’t have a map we

really don’t know what specific area that we’re speaking of here.

Is that correct?

Mr. CULP. We certainly know generally. We’ve received, as I said,

two large scale maps and then an aerial photograph with the

boundaries delineated. They are somewhat different.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I don’t understand—I looked at the activities

that you suggest here that they’re roads. Of course, I think our colleague from Utah, the chairman, was pointing out that there’s a

special recreation management area that’s been apparently administratively designated here. I don’t know if they have any special

recreational management areas for off-road vehicles in Utah or

not—but the issue here is what is the overall land plan for this

area? Is there something that fundamentally conflicts with it? I

mean, there are conflicts, but are these the only conflicts that you

have here for the land?

Mr. CULP. We have a recent resource management plan for the

area that calls for retention in Federal ownership for——

Mr. VENTO. A retention of this particular area.

Mr. CULP. Correct.

Mr. VENTO. And, so are there other areas that—in Nevada, obviously, it’s a State where there’s 67 or 70 percent ownership. I think

we shifted even a little more over here and——

Mr. GIBBONS. Eighty-seven.

Mr. VENTO. But the—89 percent. Well, we keep gaining more of

it. But the issue is it isn’t like we’re an occupying force, but sometimes we’re treated that way, I guess. The issue is, are there some

other areas that have been designated for use for aviation for future development that are different than this site?

Mr. CULP. None that we have identified. I want to be clear: I

think that, in general, this area, as Mr. Walker testified, may be

the best there is. We have to deal with these conflicts as best we

can.

Mr. VENTO. I’m just wondering if there’s some overall plan. This

hasn’t been studied for wilderness, is that correct? Has this area

been studied for wilderness?

Mr. CULP. It would have been, certainly. There is no wilderness

area within the——

Mr. VENTO. It hasn’t been studied for it. I mean hasn’t BLM just

gone through a wilderness study on most of the land? Was this

area studied or not?
14

Mr. CULP. We have done studies and reviewed them. I’m sure

this area was part of that, and we do not have a conflict with a

designated or—what’s the other term for a wilderness—wilderness

review area.

Mr. VENTO. OK. My point is, of course, that it has off-road vehicles and some other activities on it that sound like they’re in conflict, in any case, so it likely wouldn’t be—at least part of it

wouldn’t be recommended. I don’t know how much of that—since

you don’t have a map, obviously, we’d end up with, but you agree

now, that it is 6,000 acres not 22,000 or 20,000. Is that right, Mr.

Walker?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, it’s never been 20,000 acres. We provided a

map some time ago to the BLM, and it’s always been around 6,000

acres.

Mr. VENTO. So, when do you expect a sequence—I mean, I understand that under law you suggest that this could be granted without cost, but you’re willing to incur a cost in terms of providing certainty, because the amount of money would not be great. I mean,

what would the cost per acre be here? What do you anticipate?

Mr. WALKER. Well, obviously, we’d have to have an appraisal

through the BLM process, but we anticipate it would be less than

$1,000 an acre.

Mr. VENTO. Less than $1,000 an acre. And your suggesting that

that be determined within 6 months and then the cost of that be

frozen and paid off over a period of 20 years. What is the purpose

for that? If this airport is going to be developed, wouldn’t it be developed in the next 5 to 10 years?

Mr. WALKER. Actually, what we would like to do is take down—

and that’s probably where the 2,000 acres came from in somebody’s

discussion. Two thousand acres are what we would need initially

to develop the airfield itself, and then the rest of the land could be

drawn down as needed to develop the support and the infrastructure around it.

Mr. VENTO. Will that develop the entire complex of housing or

industrial park of whatever else?

Mr. WALKER. Correct. Right, we’d need cargo facilities and other

support facilities such as flight kitchens and others things that are

associated with an airport. If an appraisal came in the way we

would think it would be based on the land values in Las Vegas and

whether it’s situation in an undeveloped area and it, indeed, comes

under $1,000 an acre, we would probably take the land down in 2

or 3 years, maximum time. We’re just trying to protect ourselves

if it comes in a lot higher than that, we would like to be able to

take it over time. We need to get the land so that we can do the

proper planning studies; coordinate the airspace with the FAA; do

our environmental work, and we think it would be appropriate to

control the site before spend all of our money.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, just one more question—I know I’m

beyond my time here—but the BLM suggests that this ought to be

part of the regular process of the administrative planning process

where the BLM and the FAA are the proper forum for addressing

the county’s needs. Has there been such a forum in place?

Mr. WALKER. Well, the last plan that we’re aware of was done

8 years ago, and Las Vegas is such a fast and dynamic growing
15

area that we felt it would be best to come and ask Congress for this

special legislation to allow us to buy this land at fair market value

for this purpose so that we could plan ahead. We’ve seen what’s

happened in the last 20 years in Las Vegas, and if continues into

the next 20 years, if we don’t do something now, this site will not

be available for an airport, because there will be too many conflicts

developed. And so what we’re trying to do, as local government,

trying to be good planners; plan ahead and make sure that we have

the facilities in place to make sure that the community functions

for the benefit of its citizens. So, we think this is the right process.

Mr. VENTO. Well, are there any reverters or anything in this, if

this is used for the airport it’s one thing, but it would obviously be

your property, so it could be used for a variety of things afterwards.

Mr. WALKER. My understanding is the way the bill’s written, it

would have to be used for airport purposes.

Mr. VENTO. OK.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Culp, I just have a

couple of questions on getting to the mining claim. We have mining

claims all over Nevada and southern Nevada on BLM land, and

when we do exchanges we have to deal with these mining claims,

and we’ve been able to effectively deal with those mining claims.

Wouldn’t you agree with that?

Mr. CULP. Yes, yes, I would. I would make a point that, as I’m

sure you know, mining claims have value whether they’ve been

patented or not.

Mr. ENSIGN. Right, but we’ve been able to deal with those.

Mr. CULP. But we’ve been able to deal with them.

Mr. ENSIGN. Right, and there’s nothing out there from what

we’ve looked at—I don’t know if anything the BLM has looked at—

that would indicate that there would be any problem dealing with

the mining claims that we have out there.

Mr. CULP. No, sir.

Mr. ENSIGN. OK. Do you anticipate—looking at this bill, is there

anything that’s a show stopper in there? Is there anything that the

BLM says, ‘‘No, this is absolutely—we can’t live with this?’’ Is there

anything in this bill that BLM absolutely can’t live with?

Mr. CULP. I think there are probably three. One is the issue of

a definitive, officially filed map that can be referenced.

Mr. ENSIGN. OK, but that could be dealt with.

Mr. CULP. That can be dealt with.

Mr. ENSIGN. OK.

Mr. CULP. The appraisal issue which I believe also could be dealt

with could be a show stopper, because, again, if this land is taken

down over an extended period of time, its value regardless of the

development of the airport can be expected to change and probably

change significantly over 20 years.

Mr. ENSIGN. Just because I’m pretty familiar with this area, why

would it change? There’s no other private land available out there

to build any kind of infrastructure to increase the value of that. We

talked about that in this Committee when we were talking about

the southern Nevada lands bill. Land in the desert—this is no

water rights; this is no—this is as barren of land—as a matter of

fact, Mr. Vento, when you were talking about this land, if you could
16

see this land, this is as barren a land as you can possibly get. Most

of it is a dry lake bed that—alkali—that nothing grows on, and this

land is as worthless a land as you can possibly imagine. Why would

this land increase in value if nothing else is done? If the county

doesn’t do this, take this land down—the BLM is not in the business of improving the land to increase the value—so, if the county

government doesn’t do this, there’s no other private land out there,

how can you increase the value of this land over 20—I don’t care

if it’s 100 years? In other words, the only way that this land would

be improved in value is if the county does something and that what

the county is trying to do is protect itself. If it increases the value

of the land, the county itself, it doesn’t want to have to pay for that

increased value because of what it did.

Mr. CULP. We certainly recognize that point and don’t believe the

county should have to pay for value that it creates. Some of the solutions we would suggest is, perhaps, using some kind of an index

for other land in the area not influenced by the development of the

airport itself or certainly one option would be for the county to take

the whole area, initially, based on this first appraisal. I can understand why they did not——

Mr. ENSIGN. Do you understand what they’re trying to do here.

I mean, let’s use some common sense here. Let’s don’t think like

bureaucracy sometimes thinks. I realize what regulations are.

They’ve looked at the regulation; they’ve looked at how all of this

thing goes about, and they say that they can get the land for free.

It would take a long time to do it under bureaucratic practices, and

so all they’re trying to do is say, ‘‘You know what? We’ll even pay

some money. It’s worth a certain cost. We just want to make sure

that cost isn’t outrageous, so we want to build in some security for

us, and that security is based on the appraisal, we want to make

sure we can pay it out over 20 years in case it comes in higher

than what we expect.’’ That’s all they’re trying to do here. This is

land they could get, if they went through the slow bureaucratic

process, for free. So, why would the BLM—this is a common sense

thing—why would the BLM object to that? I just don’t understand

that?

Mr. CULP. Again, I think the point is that this is such a rapidly

developing area that it’s——

Mr. ENSIGN. Not this area. This area is ever going to be rapidly

developing. The only land is Stateline and Jean that’s privately

owned. The rest of it is all BLM land; it cannot develop.

Mr. CULP. It wouldn’t be developed under the current land use

plan, that’s correct.

Mr. ENSIGN. So, how can it rapidly develop? This is 25 miles

from Las Vegas.

Mr. CULP. I guess what I would like to do is go back 20 years

on some other areas and see what’s——

Mr. ENSIGN. But there’s no water. I mean, there’s some obvious

things here that this land can’t be developed. I know this area very

well. There’s no water in this valley to do this with, and if you

don’t have water in the desert, you can’t develop.

Mr. CULP. There is—I assume the airport has dealt with that

issue.
17

Mr. WALKER. Yes, we’ve talked to the water district. We would

have plans to bring water out to the area, it would not be inexpensive.

Mr. ENSIGN. That’s kind of the point is the county has to do it.

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Chairman, one other comment——

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Wait a minute. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, just one—I think the other issue

here, of course, is that this is a blocked up Federal area of BLM

land and how it’s managed, and I understand the necessity of trying to assist development and especially in a rapidly developing

area, but the point is that this will influence all the land and activities around it, and, of course, you know there have been some

pretty intense efforts to move water into areas. I think what you

would anticipate is it does change the landscape here and probably

the dynamics of what happens with the economy and the desire to

do some development around that airport outside the 6,000 acres

which will impact on what happens with BLM. So, it’s not really

your problem, but it is a problem, I think, in terms of trying to—

the citizens of Nevada ought to look, is that what they want? Is

this the best policy? And, of course, the planning process and review would have an opportunity to discuss that, but we’re sort of

doing—I mean, the effort here ends up short circuiting that process.

Mr. ENSIGN. If the gentleman would yield.

Mr. VENTO. I’d be happy to yield.

Mr. ENSIGN. What we are talking about, what the BLM is trying

to say, though, is that development in the area could increase the

value of the land, not what the county is doing here with this airport. They’re saying other development could increase the value of

the land. That’s why they had this problem with the 20 years, but

there’s nothing that’s going to develop out there if the county

doesn’t develop this property, and that’s what the county is saying.

Mr. VENTO. I am not concerned—I might say, I think there

should be less concern on our part in the fact that the land would

be conveyed at no cost for this particular public purpose with reverters, so it’s going to be conveyed at some cost with, apparently,

some sort of reverter in terms of how it’s used. But I think the

broader question is not one that necessarily you are addressing,

but it’s one that will face any public land manager and that is the

adjacent land to this and the whole area, because, administratively,

it makes it more difficult. Of course, we’re not in the business here

just to make easy for land managers. We need to do what’s right

in terms of providing and according the economic and the necessary

transportation development for the State.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for

one comment.

Mr. VENTO. Sure.

Mr. HANSEN. We’ll now start another round. Mr. Walker, why

don’t you just do this under section 505 of the Airport and Airways

Improvement Act?

Mr. WALKER. It would take a long time, and we would like to get

the land and start our planning process now, and so we would pre-
18

fer to pay what we believe is going to be a reasonable value for the

land once the appraisal comes in; get the land, and avoid that long

bureaucratic process that is established to obtain that land under

that process.

Mr. HANSEN. You would get it free that way.

Mr. WALKER. Yes, but free is not always best when it takes a

long time.

Mr. HANSEN. I’ve never seen BLM really move on at a breakneck speed, you know. They don’t exactly—I think that their new

emblem ought to be the desert tortoise, because that’s basically

how we get things done at the BLM. No disrespect to our friends

down there; we gave them those laws, but they don’t exactly move

at a great speed.

Mr. WALKER. Well, then you have two Federal bureaucracies that

we would have to deal with in this as well—the FAA and the

BLM—and then you just compound that problem, and so we feel

it’s better if the land values come in the way we anticipated, we

think it’s more—actually, probably more cost-effective for us just to

buy the land.

Mr. HANSEN. Oh, I see. Let me direct a question to my friend

from Nevada, Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Gibbons is a lawyer, a geologist, an

airline pilot, and a fighter pilot, so I think——

Mr. GIBBONS. When I figure out what I want to be when I grow

up, Mr. Chairman, I’ll let you know.

[Laughter.]

Mr. HANSEN. Pick one, will you? Anyway, out of that, not anywhere in your category, but having put a few hundred hours at the

yoke, Jean Airport, would that be affected substantially by putting

this one in? In other words, aerospace practice areas, transponders,

all that kind of stuff.

Mr. GIBBONS. Well, I’m sure, Mr. Chairman, that approach corridors would have to be constructed depending upon the terrain

and other rules that the FAA has in establishing certain parameters for approach and departure corridors in a busy airport area.

It would be my understanding that this would be done in concert

with the existing Jean Airport so that no conflict or impact on Jean

would either prevent this airport from being constructed or minimizing the importance of Jean Airport.

Mr. HANSEN. By any chance, does the gentleman know where the

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is coming from on this

issue?

Mr. GIBBONS. No.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Walker?

Mr. WALKER. I don’t believe they’ve taken a position, to our

knowledge, on this issue at all.

Mr. HANSEN. I see. The gentleman from America Samoa.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walker, I

wanted to ask a question again. I’m sure that this issue has taken

the officials of Nevada years to undertake. Have you considered

any other options beside this valley or this area that is located 22

miles south of Las Vegas for airport development?

Mr. WALKER. Yes, we hired a consultant to do an analysis for us

of what are possible locations for a future airport site, and this was

identified as the best site. Unfortunately, for us, depending on how
19

you look at it, fortunately, for other uses, we have Nellis Air Force

Base and, basically, five miles north of McCarran is a wall of airspace for the Department of Defense, and so we cannot look in that

direction at all. The airplanes aren’t even allowed to fly into that

space. The only other place that was looked at was a place called

the El Dorado Valley which is close to Boulder City which is farther away than this site, and that’s been recently acquired by Boulder City, and they’re not interested in having a commercial airport

over there. Plus, it would be much more difficult with the mountainous terrain around it, so—and, plus, it’s desert tortoise habitat

on top of all of that. So, this is the best site in terms of terrain;

in terms of no conflicts with the mountains; in terms of proximity

to Las Vegas, and for the minimal environmental issues that are

attached to this land relative to other choices. So, when we

weighed all of the different potential sites, of which there are not

many, this is clearly the best site.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In the process of your consultation, can you

site exactly approximately when did you first raise this issue with

the officials of BLM in Nevada?

Mr. WALKER. With the local office, I know we’ve been talking

with them, like I said, for a couple of years on this issue, and I personally met with Pat Shea, the Director of BLM, approximately, I

would guess it’s been 3 months ago to indicate to him that we were

going to ask our congressional delegation to introduce this bill; provided him a copy of the map, and generally explained what the

issues were. So, we’ve been having this dialogue for some time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Now, as you know, the gentleman, Mr.

Culp, has testified that no map has been provided to his office, and

this concerns me as to how extensive your research has been in actually giving them a map to work on. Is this true? Or this is not?

Mr. WALKER. Well, we haven’t provided the map specifically to

Mr. Culp, but we have provided maps to the local office; to the Director; to this Committee. If they would tell me who I should provide a map to, I’d be glad to send them one.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Culp, I am not putting any blame on

you for your testimony this morning, but I have to restate my other

disappointment with your friends at the BLM office in Nevada for

not giving you the right information about the consultations that

have been going on with the State officials of Nevada about the

issues that you’ve raised here this morning.

You said earlier that it would probably take a couple of weeks

for the BLM and the FAA to conduct a study or whatever, a feasibility, to see what would be the possible area that an airport

could be developed as expressed by the needs of the officials from

the State of Nevada. Am I correct in your opinion that you can do

this in a couple of weeks?

Mr. CULP. That was my testimony, yes, sir.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you think that you can—this whole thing

can be done administratively without going through a congressional legislation?

Mr. CULP. No, I believe it does require legislation. I would like

to add one point, too: the last map that we got was last Wednesday

after our official testimony was submitted, so this really has been
20

a fast moving and changing target which is fine, but it’s not like

we’ve been dragging our feet.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. OK. I just wanted to make sure, for the

record, that we’re not putting you too much on a tight rope here.

I wanted—I suppose one of the main issues that we’re going to—

that’s going to be very—I wouldn’t say controversial but certainly

one for discussion will be the fair market value issue as outlined

in the provisions of the bill when it addresses that issue, but I just

wanted your commitment that you say that in a couple of weeks

the BLM and the FAA can work this thing out with the officials

of the State of Nevada?

Mr. CULP. We’re prepared to work with the Subcommittee and

with the county folks and the State folks very quickly, yes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As you know, the entire State—I mean, the

congressional delegation from Nevada fully supports the proposed

legislation. What kind of a time table do you think it will take for

the BLM to come through with its commitments and see when we

can get this resolved?

Mr. CULP. If we can sit down quickly together, particularly the

folks in Nevada, with our State director, Bob Abbey and his people,

I feel confident that what I said earlier about a matter of weeks

is something that we can live with. Two weeks is kind of tight, but

we can work hard at it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How about a 4-month period?

Mr. CULP. That’s more than enough, I believe.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That will resolve the entire issue. Does that

give you enough leeway to really get this thing moving?

Mr. CULP. Well, 4 months probably would not for the Congress

if they want to move this legislation this year.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Nevada that sponsored the

bill, Mr. Gibbons.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice, Mr. Culp, that

you’re saying this is a fast moving and changing target. Over the

period of the last 3 months, how far has this target moved since

you were first informed of it?

Mr. CULP. It’s hard to answer that question. I would say that

we’ve narrowed down the location which——

Mr. GIBBONS. In terms of—we’ve narrowed it down in terms of

what? Miles from where it was originally proposed? What?

Mr. CULP. Acres, miles.

Mr. GIBBONS. So, they’ve moved it?

Mr. CULP. We have—as I mentioned earlier—we have, I believe

resolved one of the most significant concerns which was the potential impact on this desert tortoise relocation area, and that’s significant progress.

Mr. WALKER. Congressman Gibbons, we originally had a few

hundred feet to the west of I–15 in the original proposal when it

came to our attention this was a desert tortoise relocation area. We

adjusted the map to stay on the east side of I–15 to avoid that conflict, and that’s, to my knowledge, the only change that’s happened

since we produced the original map.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Walker, you also—your Department of Aviation is in control of the Jean Airport, are you not?
21

Mr. WALKER. That is correct.

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you see any conflict in light of the fact that you

also have Henderson Airport which is six miles from McCarran

International that some situation would occur in terms of establishing instrument flight rule patterns, departure corridors, arrival corridors in McCarran is the same situation with Jean, and tell me

what you think might be a problem?

Mr. WALKER. Well, we work very well with the FAA and the local

tower to create the—to develop the airspace around the valley that

accommodates both commercial aircraft and the general aviation

aircraft. We’ve done that at Henderson which has a six mile nautical difference between the two airports. We’ve developed the

Class B airspace in such a way that the airplanes taking off and

landing at Henderson could do so by staying under the Class B airspace and not create a conflict with the commercial aircraft. We believe we can do the same thing at Jean. As I indicated before, we

now have an ongoing study with regional people from Los Angeles,

our local tower, and the Department of Defense to look at the entire airspace in the valley to be able to come up with a long term

plan that will accommodate all of these issues.

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Mr. Culp, you mentioned the desert

tortoise issue. Are you aware that the Clark County Desert Tortoise Conservation Planning Committee has recently sent a letter

to our Senators indicating that they see no obvious conflict between

the proposed airport; the conservation measures set forth in the

desert conservation plan; the critical habitat for the desert tortoise;

the desert tortoise ACECs, or the desert tortoise translocation

areas? Are you aware of that?

Mr. CULP. I have not seen those letters, but I am very pleased

to hear about that, and I think that probably relates to the shift

in the location.

Mr. GIBBONS. I’m sure we can get you a copy of that. Perhaps,

that would help alleviate the Department’s concern over the desert

tortoise issue in this area.

With those issues resolve, Mr. Culp, do you see any final obstacle

that would prevent the BLM from supporting the transfer of this

land?

Mr. CULP. I think that we have still with us the fair market

value issue to work out one way or another, and I think that’s

probably the most significant one that’s left.

Mr. GIBBONS. And, personally, from my standpoint, I see that as

probably the least of all obstacles to overcome, because we can establish fair market value existing today for the property. I don’t see

a fair market value whether it’s 10 years, 20 years, or 100 years,

as being a difficult situation. I mean, here we are, the county is

paying for its own development, and the fair market value—maybe

we should ask you, for the record, what is your definition of fair

market value?

Mr. CULP. We’d be happy to provide that.

Mr. GIBBONS. Does the fair market value issue—you don’t have

a concept today here with you that you could give us?

Mr. CULP. It would be based on our—as Mr. Walker said—based

on our standard appraisal procedures. The issue really is not fair

market value today, I don’t think. It’s the provision that allows for
22

the take down of the land over 20 years and the changes that

would occur.

Mr. GIBBONS. So, what would be your solution to the problem, if

I may?

Mr. CULP. There are several possible solutions. One is for the

county to consider taking the entire property now. Another is to include in the legislation some sort of index in the provision that

would attempt to isolate increases in value due to the construction

of the airport itself but would allow for adjustment of values for future take down.

Mr. GIBBONS. This just seems to me that you want to be the beneficiary of the hard work and improvements of the county in this

area. You want to take advantage of the improved price as time

goes on. You’re not willing to give them the value of the land that

exists today without the development, because without the development your land wouldn’t be any higher in value, but you want to

take advantage of it. I think you’re trying to have your cake and

eat it too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. This concludes this hearing. We thank

our panel for being with us, and we now are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject

to the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
23

STATEMENT OF PETE CULP, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MINERALS, REALTY AND RESOURCE

PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 3705, the Ivanpah Valley Airport

Public Lands Transfer Act, a bill that provides for the transfer of certain public

lands to the Clark County Department of Aviation. Although the concept of an airport at this location may have merit, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) can

not support H.R. 3705 in its present form.

H.R. 3705 provides for the conveyance of lands to the Clark County Department

of Aviation over a period of 20 years. The lands are to be used for an airport facility

and associated industrial and commercial development. The lands are to be conveyed over this 20-year period of time on an as needed basis to the Department of

Aviation. Market value for all conveyances are to be based on appraised values determined within 6 months of the passage of the legislation. The lands will be withdrawn from entry under the mining laws. Although no maps have been provided,

we understand the lands are located a few miles south of Jean, Nevada.

I would like to discuss the primary concerns that we have with H.R. 3705. Our

principal concern with the bill is the conflict that will be created with current land

use in the area. In this general area, there are a variety of third-party rights and

land uses that conflict with the proposed airport use. One section of land is encumbered by mining claims, the entire area is within a grazing allotment, the Nevada

Department of Transportation has two mineral material sites for acquiring gravel

for road maintenance in the area, three major power lines and a utility corridor bisect the site, and the area is Desert Tortoise habitat. In addition to providing tortoise habitat, the lands west of Interstate 15 serve as a translocation site for tortoise

that are affected by development elsewhere in Clark County. This area is a historical Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) use area and portions of the lands have been designated as a Special Recreation Management Area. There are several OHV loop

areas between Primm and Jean that would be eliminated by this proposal. We assume that the airport authority would not desire OHV use near the airport due to

the dust created. This area is also used for sky diving which clearly would be eliminated if a new airport is constructed. For all of these reasons, this area is identified

in the BLM’s Stateline Resource Management Plan as lands to be retained in Federal ownership.

Another significant issue is the conveyance of lands at less than fair market

value. The bill requires the Department of Aviation to pay for the lands that are

to be conveyed piecemeal over a period of twenty years at the market value determined immediately after passage of the bill. This means that lands being conveyed

15 or 18 years from now will be conveyed at a 1998 market value, assuming passage

of this bill this year. Land values can change significantly over that period of time.

The bill should be modified to base the values of public lands on fair market value

at the time of conveyance.

A third issue of concern is the fact that we do not have a map that shows the

lands involved. We have only been able to review a small map showing the proposed

site, but we have received nothing official. Not having on file the map referred to

in Section 2(a) of this bill causes two problems. First an unofficial small-scale map

is not sufficient to offer the Subcommittee a detailed discussion of issues that may

exist on the ground. The map we have seen shows an area of 32 square miles as

the airport site. About 2,000 acres are the airport and development lands, 4,560

acres are reserved for an Industrial Center and 13,830 acres are buffer zone. The

lines differentiating these areas are not legible but seem to follow natural features

rather than legal boundaries. As you can see, we are not sure if this bill involves

the conveyance of the 2,000 acres identified as airport and development lands or all

the acres identified amounting to more than 20,000 acres of public lands.

It is also important to note that on March 5, 1998, the District Court for the District of Columbia, in its decision in Coast Alliance v. Babbitt, essentially nullified

section 220 of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, because maps referenced in that section were not on file on the date of enactment of

that Act. We, therefore, believe it is essential for the Committee to work with the

BLM to develop a dated and officially filed map prior to the markup of this legislation.

As the map is developed, we would ask that consideration be given to identifying

boundaries that follow cadastral survey lines in order to allow for conveyances of

lands without the time and expense of surveys. It is also requested that the above

identified resource and land use conflicts be avoided in preparation of the map if

possible.

Another concern deals with the withdrawal of the public lands. The bill withdraws

the lands from the mining laws, while not affecting the existing mining claims.
24

There is no provision for a sunset of the withdrawal at the expiration of the Act

or at such time as the Department of Aviation declares that all the desired lands

have been conveyed. As written, this provision requires the BLM to go through the

time-consuming administrative process to terminate the withdrawal.

Finally, we note that Clark County, as a recipient of Federal grants to construct

the Jean Airport, a general aviation airport that opened two years ago near Ivanpah

Valley, is obligated by the grant terms to operate and maintain the airport for its

useful life. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) informally advises that operations by large aircraft at an Ivanpah Valley airport site, as envisioned by Clark

County, could likely conflict with the general aviation activity at Jean.

The administration believes, however, that the issues that I have identified can

best be resolved and should be resolved in the context of the administrative planning processes of the BLM and the FAA. Clark County’s efforts to plan for the future commercial aviation needs of the Las Vegas metropolitan area are commendable. We recognize that initiating the preliminary planning now will ensure the

county’s ability to provide for air service for the region in the future and, therefore,

stand ready to assist the county in every way possible. Nonetheless, we strongly believe that administrative planning processes of the BLM and the FAA are the proper and desirable forum for addressing the county’s needs.

That concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions.

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

COUNTY, NEVADA

Mr. Chairman, my name is Randall Walker and I am the Director of Aviation for

the Clark County Department of Aviation in Las Vegas, Nevada. I appear today to

testify in strong support of H.R. 3705, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior

to convey for fair market value, certain lands in the Ivanpah valley to the Clark

County Department of Aviation to allow us a site for the future construction of an

airport to serve southern Nevada.

The role of the airport in any community is to provide the airport infrastructure

and facilities necessary to enable any and all air carriers to serve the community

if they choose to do so. Because Las Vegas has been one of the fastest growing airports in the nation, keeping pace with airline passenger demand has been a significant challenge. At McCarran International Airport, passenger traffic since 1990 has

grown 64 percent.

Las Vegas is fortunate. We have direct service to over 50 communities and unlike

hub airports, we are not dependent upon any single carrier to maintain this level

of air service. Our airport system consists of Las Vegas McCarran International Airport, the tenth largest airport in the United States, the North Las Vegas Airport,

which is the 47th largest airport in the country, the Henderson Executive Airport,

an important corporate reliever airport for McCarran, the Jean Airport, a sport

aviation complex, and the Overton and Searchlight Airports, two general utility airports in rural parts of Clark County. The Department of Aviation operates, as I

have mentioned several smaller airports in our airport system. The development of

these smaller airports has allowed aircraft operations at our major airport,

McCarran, to accommodate primarily large air carrier type traffic instead of having

our limited airfield and airspace available become congested with smaller, slower,

commuter and general aviation traffic. Providing first class small airport airport alternatives to McCarran for the smaller, slower aircraft has been crucial to our strategy of keeping delays low at McCarran.

Half the people who come to southern Nevada now come by air. Air traffic into

Las Vegas has statistically followed the construction of hotel rooms. Before the year

2000, Las Vegas will add approximately 12,000 more rooms to the inventory. We

estimate that every thousand new hotel rooms will generate 275,000 visitors or an

annual total of 6 million new tourists, half of whom will pass through McCarran.

Seventy eight years ago when Randall Henderson landed his small airplane on

a dirt runway, air service to Las Vegas was initiated. Fifty years ago in 1948, Clark

County acquired McCarran field on south Las Vegas Boulevard. Once a small airfield out in the desert, McCarran is now surrounded by the Las Vegas Strip to the

West, the University of Nevada Las Vegas to the north, extensive residential, industrial and commercial development to the east and by U.S. Interstate 215 and the

Union Pacific Railroad to the south. We cannot expand beyond our present acreage

to accommodate the growth we anticipate in the years ahead.

We are proud of the facilities we have constructed at McCarran Airport and with

the opening of the new ‘‘D’’ gates terminal last weekend, we will have constructed

over $1.5 billion of new facilities and infrastructure to not only accommodate, but
25

to stay significantly ahead of this explosive growth. The new ‘‘D’’ gates will provide

sufficient facilities to carry us five years into the future. The ‘‘D’’ gates terminal is

located, however, on one of the last spots of aircraft accessible land at McCarran.

After the future phases of the ‘‘D’’ gates are complete, we will not have realistic expansion alternatives to add additional terminal facilities at the airport.

We now have four air carrier capable runways at McCarran, and due to space constraints, that is all we will ever have room for. Fortunately, with our existing four

runways, there is sufficient airfield capacity to allow for additional short and mid

term growth. However, once that growth gets above 600,000 annual aircraft operations, (we are currently at 474,000) our runway/taxiway system will produce cumulative delays that exceed an average of forty minutes per aircraft operation. These

estimates have been prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration and are contained in the recent report, Capacity Enhancement Plan for Las Vegas McCarran

International Airport, a copy of which I am submitting for the record. Simply put,

we are running out of room at McCarran Airport.

I would like to briefly explain a little bit about the economics of airline service

to Las Vegas. For a number of different reasons, Las Vegas is one of the least profitable destinations for the scheduled airlines to serve. This is due to the fact that

most people who fly to Las Vegas plan ahead for a vacation or to attend a convention and buy their airplane ticket well in advance to secure the lowest fare possible.

Other passengers come to Las Vegas as part of a comprehensive tour package where

a tour broker has blocked space with an airline and at a hotel for a deep discount.

Finally, many travelers redeem frequent flier miles to fly themselves or their families to Las Vegas at virtually no cost to them and thus no revenue for the airlines.

With the majority of passengers traveling to Las Vegas being either advance purchase fares, tour packages or frequent flier redemptions, it is easy to see why Las

Vegas is a low yield destination for the airlines.

It is easy to understand why the airlines which service Las Vegas, are very sensitive to the incremental system costs which results from departure and arrival

delays. Increasing delays mean higher operational costs attributable to wasted fuel

burned on the taxiways, added crew time and additional delays at connecting airports. As the operator of McCarran Airport, we have to be sensitive that delay costs

could make it difficult for airlines to add airline service or to maintain existing service levels.

For us to maintain the viability of long term airline service to Las Vegas, we need

to find an alternative primary commercial service airport to McCarran. We have

studied options for several years and we have concluded there is only one viable alternative airport site. Most of the airspace to the north of McCarran is under the

control of the Department of Defense due to the ever increasing military operations

at Nellis Air Force Base. This has limited our search to areas south of Las Vegas.

The only viable site that has adequate airspace is about 22 miles south of McCarran

in the Ivanpah Valley.

Ivanpah Valley is the only site that will allow for a full precision instrument approach that will not result in a severe airspace conflict with the air traffic at

McCarran. This site, with the potential for a north-south complex of parallel runways is unusual because it is both flat and devoid of mound terrain off the ends

of the future runways. It is also located in close proximity to Interstate 15 and the

Union Pacific Railroad which will enhance intermodal transportation and cargo opportunities.

It is our plan to develop this airport as needed by our growth at McCarran. It

is likely that the first developments to move to this new airport would be air cargo

and charter operations with scheduled air service eventually following as traffic continues to increase at McCarran.

Notwithstanding the opportunity for us to obtain Federal land under Section 505

of the Airport and Airways Improvement Act for free, there is a significant bureaucratic process involved that could take years to complete. Mr. Chairman, we are

very anxious to secure this site and we are willing to pay fair market value for the

land, which is just a little bit more than 6,000 acres. This new airport is absolutely

critical for the Clark County Department of Aviation to fulfill its mission of never

allowing the lack of airport infrastructure to be an impediment to people coming to

visit Las Vegas, the Grand Canyon or other destinations in Color Country.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this most important issue

regarding the future of our air transportation system in Clark County. I am available to answer any questions you may have.
26

STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Chairman Hansen:

Please include this letter in the June 23 hearing record for H.R. 3705, The

Ivanpah Valley Airport Public Lands Transfer Act.

The Wilderness Society opposes H.R. 3705. We believe this bill undercuts existing

laws and policies regarding the management, protection, and disposal of public

lands. In addition, the bill will damage important public recreational resources,

wildlife habitat, and units of the national park and wilderness preservation systems.

As written, H.R. 3705: (1) ignores the existing Federal land management plan for

public lands in Clark County, (2) circumvents the planning process called for in the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), (3) prevents adequate public

review of the land sale and its environmental impacts, and (4) fails to provide a fair

return to U.S. taxpayers by not resuming fair market value for the sale of these

lands.

The proposed legislation would be in direct conflict with the existing Bureau of

Land Management’s Stateline Resource Management Plan. That plan, developed

with the full participation of the public and an appropriate environmental review

process, determined that the lands identified by H.R. 3705 should remain in Federal

ownership. A number of important public benefits and uses of the land, including

recreational and wildlife habitat, were the basis for this determination.

Specifically, Section 2 (a) of H.R. 3705 would thwart the requirements of Section

202 of FLPMA and require the sale of these lands in direct contradiction to the existing management plan for the area, without a public participation process to review the proposal and without the environmental review that would necessarily be

included in that process.

Section 2 (b) of H.R. 3705 would limit the ability of the Federal Treasury to obtain

fair market value for the sale of these lands by restricting the determination of fair

market value to the six month period after enactment of the law, rather than at

the time of the sale of the lands. This restriction is particularly significant given

the 20-year time frame envisioned for the sale of these public lands.

Given the absence of a map, the exact extent and resource impact of the proposed

land sale is unclear, but at a minimum, several square miles of public land which

supports recreation and wildlife would be turned over for industrial development.

Development of the proposed airport would not only directly impact the lands on

which it is sited, but it would also lead to significant impacts to the Mojave National

Preserve and its wilderness areas.

The Preserve lies directly under the flight paths for aircraft that would use the

proposed airport. The western most runway of the airport would be less than ten

miles from the boundary of the Mojave National Preserve and flights landing and

departing would be at their lowest and loudest levels as they approached the park.

These overflights would destroy the area’s natural quiet and disturb both visitors

and the park’s wildlife populations.

The development of an international airport in this area would also attract significant interest in development of the surrounding lands for commercial purposes.

Clearly, this would lead to increasing pressure to sell off more public lands to provide for the continuing, uncontrolled sprawl that is Las Vegas.

The public lands and resources affected by H.R. 3705 warrant the careful attention of both the BLM and Congress. These lands should not be disposed of without

a considered public planning process that determines that such disposition is in the

public’s best interest. We believe that H.R. 3705 is an ill-advised bill, particularly

in light of the time limitations which the 105th Congress faces in its waning weeks.

The Wilderness Society urges Congress to forestall any further action on this legislation, and instead to allow the administrative planning process—with its emphasis

on public involvement—an opportunity to address the important issues raised by

this bill.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE INNES, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

Dear Congressman Hansen,

I am writing to ask that my comments below be made a part of the public hearing

record on H.R. 3705, the bill pertaining to the proposed airport in the Ivanpah Valley, Nevada.

I strenuously object to the building of this airport on a site that is less than 20

miles away from one of the most beautiful wilderness spots on earth, the Mojave

National Preserve. Such a facility would fill the sky over this quiet spot with the

thunder of large, low-flying jets. It would also attract commercial and industrial de-
27

velopment south of Las Vegas (which is just 30 miles north of the site) right into

the heart of the desert, thus despoiling one of the last great desert sanctuaries of

the U.S.

I understand that the proposal calls for the transfer of land for the proposed site

from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to the Clark County Department of

Aviation. I strongly urge you to recommend against this transfer!

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

NEVADA

Mr. Chairman, I submit testimony to you today in strong support of H.R. 3705,

which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to convey for fair market value, certain lands in the Ivanpah valley to the Clark County Department of Aviation to

allow us a site for the future construction of an airport to serve southern Nevada.

As you know I am the principle sponsor along with my colleague Senator Bryan of

companion legislation in the Senate.

Half the people who come to southern Nevada now come by air. Air traffic into

Las Vegas has statistically followed the construction of hotel rooms. Before the year

2000, Las Vegas will add approximately 12,000 more rooms to the inventory. We

estimate that every thousand new hotel rooms will generate 275,000 visitors or an

annual total of 6 million new tourists, half of whom will pass through McCarran.

Weekend before last I attended the opening of the new ‘‘D’’ gates terminal. With

the completion of this beautiful facility, we will have constructed over $1.5 billion

of new infrastructure to not only accommodate, but to stay significantly ahead of

the anticipated growth at McCarran. The new ‘‘D’’ gates will provide sufficient facilities to carry us ten years into the future. The ‘‘D’’ gates terminal is located however

on the last spot of aircraft accessible land at McCarran. After the future phases of

the ‘‘D’’ gates are complete, we will not be able to add additional terminal facilities

at the airport.

We now have four air carrier capable runways at McCarran, and due to space constraints, that is all we will ever have room for. Fortunately, with our existing four

runways, there is sufficient airfield capacity to allow for additional short and mid

term growth. However, once that growth gets above 600,000 annual aircraft operations, (we are currently at 474,000) our runway/taxiway system will produce cumulative delays that exceed an average of forty minutes per aircraft operation. Simply

put, we are running out of room and we need now to set aside an area that is acceptable as a new airport site for southern Nevada. The Ivanpah Valley is the only

site left that will accommodate all the needs of such an airport.

We anticipate a hearing in the Senate on our bill in July with the hope and expectation that we can pass this bill before the Congress concludes. We should be able

to do this because the bill is bipartisan and noncontroversial. I am disappointed that

the BLM witness at today’s hearing has taken a position opposed to this legislation.

I understand however that many of the concerns expressed in the BLM testimony

are based upon out of date or incomplete information about what is being proposed.

I will be working with BLM to address these issues but in the meantime I urge you

to move this legislation to markup as soon as possible and we will try to keep pace

in the Senate, thank you.