Hearing on Quapaw, Quinault, Pit River, Pueblos, Mohawk, Land Exchange Bills

Afternoon. We're gonna call this legislative hearing to order. Today the committee will consider nine bills, six Senate bills and three House companion measures. These are all focused on land transfers, land exchanges, and the resolution of long-standing tribal land claims. S six thirty, the Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act, sponsored by our former colleague Mark Wayne Mullen, would implement a one hundred and thirty-seven point five million dollar US Court of Claims recommended settlement between the United States and the Kwapa Nation. Next we have S fifteen fourteen, the Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act. This is sponsored by Senator Cantwell and its house companion, H R two three eight nine. It would take approximately seventy-two acres of old growth forest in the Olympic National Forest into trust for the benefit of the Quinault Indian Nation. Next on the agenda is S twenty seven ninety six, which is sponsored by Senator Padilla. It would authorize a land exchange between the the U Ha Viaduct of San Man Manuel Nation and the Forest Service of approximately one thousand four hundred and sixty acres of fee land owned by the U U Ha Vatiam uh of San Manuel Nation for approximately uh one point four seven five acres, not one point. one thousand four hundred and seventy-five acres of national forest system land to be held in fee. The land exchange would help connect tribal fee and trust lands to improve wildfire management and protect culturally significant sites including the Arrowhead landmark. Next we have S twenty-eight seventy-one. This is the Pitt River Land Transfer Act, also sponsored by Senator Padilla and its house companion, H R twenty-four hundred. It would transfer approximately five hundred and eighty-four acres of forest service land in Shasta County, California. Trust for the Pit River tribe, expanding the tribe's reservation and supporting cultural and economic needs. And next, S thirty-two nineteen, the Albuquerque Indian School Act of twenty twenty-five, sponsored by Senator Heinrich. It would transfer the remaining Albuquerque Indian school property from the General Services Administration into trust for the nineteen pueblos of New Mexico. This transfer would ensure the site can continue to support educational, cultural, health and economic development opportunities. And then finally, S thirty four seventy five, which is sponsored by Senator Gillibrand and its house companion, H R twenty nine eighteen, would approve a negotiated settlement between the St. Regis Mohawk tribe, the Mohawk Mohawk Council of Oc- Ocwasasne, the State of New York, several New York localities, and the New York Power Company, resolving land claims that have been in litigation for more than forty years. These bills reflect years of work by tribes, local communities, states and federal agencies to resolve land issues and advance tribal priorities. While only federal agency witnesses will tri will testify today, I would encourage the tribes that are affected by this legislation to submit written testimony and other materials for the record so that their views may be fully considered by the committee. I'll now turn to the Vice Chair for his opening statement.

Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for calling today's hearing. The bills on the agenda would accomplish two important goals, rebuilding tribal homelands and settling debts owed by the United States. And before going any further, I just want to, um, You know, this isn't our last hearing. This isn't our last mark-up. But I think it is just always worth remembering what an oasis of bipartisanship the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs continues to be and that's because of your leadership um that's because of our friendship that's because of the good work of the staff on both sides so thank you for that.

Thank you.

Over the past three congresses, uh the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has considered over a dozen bills that would take land into trust and eight have become law. As a committee, we're familiar with the importance of land and the trust and the opportunities it creates for building and advancing tribal sovereignty and self-determination. But we don't often see bills that provide redress for harms when the federal government has not lived up to its statutory obligations. For the Quapaw Nation, it was historical mismanagement of trust property of tribal members. For the Mohawk tribe, it was the purchase of their ancestral lands in violation of federal law. Authorizing and ratifying settlements between sovereigns It's just one of the ways this committee ensures the federal government lives up to its duties as a trustee. And I look forward to learning more about these particular bills, and I wanna thank our testifiers today.

Thank you, Senator Schatz. Um We will now turn to our witnesses. We have today, Mister Brian Mercier, he is the Director at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, uh the Department of Interior here in Washington, D. C. And we also have Mister John Crockett, he is the Deputy Chief uh of the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture also here in Washington, D. C. Uh, I will remind both of you that we do have your full written testimony. Um, it will be made part of the official record. So we'd ask you to to summarize, um, within the five minutes. Um, uh, I do anticipate that there will be members that are coming, but I will also remind that we have a vote that begins at two fifteen. So I'd like to get witnesses' testimony in before, uh, maybe we might have to take a break. I know Senator Schutz, you have uh another committee hearing so we're we're double tasking, triple tasking maybe um but uh we welcome you to the committee so that we can as a committee move forward in processing these important bills so Mister Mercier if you would like to lead off.

Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Uh Chairman Murkowski, Vice Chairman Schatz and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and discuss several bills affecting tribal nations. Uh Chairman Murkowski I would like to personally thank you for the invitation to Bethel Alaska last month. I I was very impressed with that community and the field hearing that you hosted, and I've been thinking a lot about it since my visit there last month.

Well, you're gonna be invited back again.

I I look I look forward to it.

You were such a great guest.

I look forward to it.

Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, my name is Brian Mercier. I'm a proud member of the Confederated Tribes Grand Rock Community of Oregon, and I am also the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior. Uh, the BIA carries out the federal government's trust and treaty responsibilities across fifty-six million acres of trust land held for federally recognized tribes. and individual American Indians. Through our programs and partnerships, we work to strengthen tribal sovereignty, promote self-determination, and support sustainable economic development and stewardship of tribal lands and resources. I'm here today to discuss six bills that would affect tribal lands, land claims, and tribal communities. First, S six thirty, the Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of twenty twenty five would establish a settlement trust account and authorized payment of settlement funds related to long-standing legal claims. The department supports the intent of the legislation to effectuate the payment of settlement funds in resolution of the claims against the United States, brought by the claimants. We look forward to working with the sponsor and the committee on technical assistance to address concerns and ensure that the legislation establishes a settlement payment process that is efficient and legally sound. Next, S fifteen fourteen, the Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act will transfer approximately seventy-two acres of lands administered by the Forest Service into trust for the Kuenelwa Indian Nation. The department supports the goals of the bill and would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee on technical changes. We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding the impacts to forest service lands. Next is S thirty-two nineteen, the Albuquerque Indian School Act of twenty twenty five would place approximately nine point eight nine acres of federal land managed by the General Services Administration into trust for the benefit of the nineteen Pueblos of New Mexico. The department supports this legislation and we would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee on a few uh minor technical modifications. S twenty seven ninety six would authorize a land exchange between the United States and the San Manuel Nation to consolidate federal land holdings and enhanced stewardship of the San Bernardino National Forest. The department would like to provide technical edits to ensure that associated easements and encumbrances are provided to the department prior to the finalizing of the exchange. We defer to the Department of Agriculture regarding the Forest Service lands affected by the bill. Next is S twenty eight seventy one, the Pitt River Land Transfer Act of twenty twenty five, which transfer approximately five hundred and eighty-four acres of federal land administered by the Forest Service into trust for the Pitt River Tribe of California. The department supports the goals of the legislation and would welcome the opportunity to work with the committee on technical modifications related to land surveys prior to the transfer. Finally, S thirty four seventy five, the settlement agreement uh the settlement agreement would authorize, ratify, and confirm the agreement of settlement and compromise to resolve the Akwesasne Mohawk land claim in the state of New York. The United States has a limited role in this settlement and is not contributing funds or land or other compensation to secure the settlement. Thank you for again for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

Thank you, Mister Mercier, and know that uh the committee looks forward to working with you um and the department in these areas where you've indicated uh technical assistance and support there so thank you for that Mister Crockett please, your testimony.

All right. Thank you. Uh so Chair Mikalski, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is John Crockett and I'm an and I'm a Deputy Chief in the US Forest Service. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony. on three bills before the committee. S fifteen fourteen, the Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act, S twenty seven ninety six, the U Haupitalium, Land San of San Manuel Nation Land Exchange Act, and S twenty eight seventy one, the Pitt River Land Exchange. The Forest Service manages a hundred and ninety-three million acres of grasslands and national forest, many of which are in proximity to tribal ancestral territories. Our partnership with tribes support forest management, wildfire mitigation, restoration, and the protector- the protection of culturally significant lands. We remain committed to strong government-to-government relationships and close coordination with our federal partners. S fifteen fourteen, the Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act, will transfer approximately seventy-two acres from the Olympic National Forest to the Department of Interior to be held in trust for the Quinault Nation subject to valid e- valid existing rights. The bill prohibits gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The USDA supports this legislation and we are committed to working with the Department of Interior and the Quinault Indian Nation to ensure a smooth and well-coordinated transfer. S twenty seven ninety six, U Habitayem of the San Manuel Nation Land Exchange Act would authorize a land exchange involving approximately one thousand four hundred and sixty acres owned by the nation for about one thousand four hundred and seventy-five acres of national forest system land. The Forest Service has been in and been engaged in the proposed land exchange since twenty twenty two, including public consultation in twenty twenty three and reached a major milestone in May of this year with the completion of the land appraisal review, and a signature on the ANIPA analysis. This bill exempts the exchange from public land exchange provisions in the federal land policy and management act, and it requires an agreement to preserve the Arrowhead Landmark site. The USDA is supportive of this legislation and we look forward to continuing to work with the committee on the implementation details. In particular, we recommend clarifying the respective roles of the USDA and the Department of Interior in completing this land exchange. And because their mineral estate is involved, the Department of Interior has the responsibilities that are necessary to complete that part of the transaction. Clarifying these responsibilities in the legislation could help avoid delays as well as support a more efficient process. S twenty eight seventy one, the Pitt River Land Exchange Act. This bill would transfer approximately five hundred and eighty-four acres within the Shasta Trinity National Forest to the Department of Interior to be held in trust for the Pitt River tribe, subject to valid existing rights, and includes a prohib prohibition on gaming. The USDA supports this legislation and would like to continue working with the committee to ensure that the existing easements and special use permits are accurately represented. geographically. Taken together, these bills represent an important opportunity to support tribal sovereignty, protect cultural resources, and strengthen intergovernmental partnerships. The Forest Service remains committed to working with this committee, tribal nations, and our federal partners to implement these actions in a manner that is thoughtful, coordinated, and respectful to all interests involved. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions.

Thank you, Mister Crockett, a- and again, uh, I extend the same as I did with Mister Mercier. Looking forward to working with those of you at the Forest Service to to get through some of the the the technical um issues that you have have highlighted. Um, Senator Heinrich, uh, I know that, uh, we have one of your bills on the on the docket here today, the Albuquerque Indian School Act of twenty twenty five. If you would like to speak to that um or ask uh the the witnesses' particular questions, but please proceed.

Thank you very much, um, Chair Murkowski, and thanks for holding this hearing on S thirty-two nineteen, the Albuquerque Indian School Act, uh, and certainly thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Uh, I'm very pleased to be joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Lujan, who is a co-sponsor of S thirty-two nineteen, and I also want to recognize Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury, who introduced the house companion, HR six one six two, along with uh Congresswoman Teresa Lejah Fernandez. Uh finally, thank you to Mister Mercier and the Department of Interior for their testimony and support of this legislation. Uh I very much appreciate the department's recognition that this bill advances tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Uh the Albuquerque Indian School Act is about putting a small but important piece of land where it belongs with New Mexico's nineteen Pueblos. Uh, it makes sense from the federal government's perspective, and this bill would transfer nearly ten acres of excess federal land next to the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center into trust for New Mexico's nineteen Pueblos. Uh, GSA has already identified these tracts as excess property, so this bill helps reduce the federal real estate footprint while putting underused land to a higher use. Uh, and it does so in a way that respects the history and the location and the leadership of the nineteen Pueblos. Uh, this is about more than just a land transfer, the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center is now a nationally recognized museum and cultural institution owned and operated by the Pueblos. It is dedicated to preserving and perpetuating Pueblo history, culture and art, while promoting future economic growth. and long-term economic stability. Uh, its broader campus is also a major economic engine in the region. Uh, what began with less than a million dollars in annual revenue in nineteen seventy-six, now generates more than sixty million dollars each year, uh, a testimony to its growth and success. This additional acreage would allow the Pueblos to expand on that success with a new walkable business park featuring space for scaling local small businesses, warehousing and distribution, all under Pueblo leadership. Uh, there is a long bipartisan history behind this effort. Since nineteen sixty-nine, the nineteen Pueblos have worked with Congress and federal agencies to reclaim and consolidate portions of the former Albuquerque Indian School campus, for cultural preservation and economic development. Congress acted, uh, in nineteen seventy-eight under Senator Pete Domenici's leadership, and again in two thousand eight and two thousand fifteen to place additional land associated with the former Albuquerque Indian school site into trust. Uh, my Albuquerque Indian school act follows that very same path. Uh, the development of these underutilized parcels of land will create jobs, foster entrepreneurship, and expand business services for public communities and the broader public as well. Additionally, the house has shown for our house companion, HR six one six two. And in fact, it passed the house yesterday with bipartisan support. Uh, this is a good bill. It is rooted in history, grounded in practicality, and led by the Pueblos themselves. Uh, it turns underused federal property into an asset for cultural preservation, entrepreneurship, and long-term economic strength. So I would, uh, urge the committee to move S three two one nine. uh, as swiftly as they see fit. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator, and know that, uh, I noted in my opening statement that there has been a great deal of work in these respective bills that, uh, that we have on the docket here today. And, um, we recognize that we, the witnesses that we have are here to give the final sign-off, but what has gone into it um needs to be recognized as well. So to those who have been helping to advance the the Albuquerque Indian School Act, um let them know that we appreciate their cooperative efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Armstrong, I know that uh uh you would like to make a statement on on your bill. I introduced it as the uh the Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act of twenty twenty five, that uh that your predecessor Senator Mark Wayne Mullen had introduced, but um pleased that you are are here to speak to the bill and to continue the effort that uh that was led by by now Secretary Mullen.

Yeah, first I'd like to acknowledge uh the chair for the supernav of the Quapaw Nation, and there she is. Thank you. Thanks for joining us today and thanks for your efforts on this. And uh lot of great dedication on her part of of trying to get this wrapped up. Um and uh to the f- the final account allocation determination. Um so anyway, I I just wanna say thanks for uh sticking with this and um and the good efforts on that. I do have a few questions today on that and um are we ready for that as well?

I'm I am happy to I am happy to yield to you, Senator Armstrong,

Okay.

to begin the questions. I know that we've got a vote, so, uh, please proceed.

Okay, great. All right, great. Um, first of all on, uh, to Mister Mercier, uh, in the the final allocation or determination, you testified that your department, um, would not support measures to, um, expose the United States to additional liability, among other concerns. And so would a provision waiving any potential liability of the department for distributing the funds and determining a final allocation between the tribe and the lotties if needed, be sufficient to resolve the department's concern?

Thank you, Senator Armstrong, for the question and and congratulations on the appointment. It's good to meet you.

Thank you.

Um, uh, I would need to take that back to our solicitors to confirm that there would be legal sufficiency for such a waiver, but I'm I'm so I'm not able to answer affirmatively right now, but I'm happy to take that back to the department and see if

Okay, and and how long do you think it would take to get an answer back?

Uh that would take just a few days, I'm sure, with our solicitors.

Good, great, great. I'll look forward to that. Thank you. And and then on um as well on the cost issue, uh the United States agreed to settle the litigation underlying the Quapaw Tribal Settlement Act in the Court of Federal Claims for a hundred and thirty-seven thou- or sorry hundred and thirty-seven million, five hundred thousand. Is that correct?

Yes, Senator, that's correct.

Thank you. And does do you feel like Congress has an obligation to pay sums agreed to by the United States to settle claims against it?

Uh, yes, Senator, we're supportive of the settlement of the claims.

OK, great. And then finally, um, does the department have ideas as to where those funds could be to re redirected to offset?

Uh, yes, Senator, we have some ideas and we would be happy to speak to you and the the tribe and other

OK.

um, members of the committee to to discuss those ideas.

Okay, great, thank you, very good. I think the, you know, the other issue I just wanted to raise and, uh, make sure that, um, we come up with a solution is in the process of then allocating those funds amongst the Elates and the tribes, um, and whether or not, what you see the r- the responsibility of your department in that regard in terms of helping out with the settlement of that.

Thank you for the question, Senator. I I think we would be w we're always willing to provide technical assistance and try to assist with this type of uh settlement, and we've done them in the past and that's part of the I think the uh my testimony today is that the bill is currently written is somewhat different from what we typically would see and we would like to maybe get back to that.

Yeah. Okay. Okay, all right, good. Um, you know, it seems like that's something that shouldn't take us too long to resolve. I I appreciate, you know, your need to be able to get back to me on that, um, and end of this office, but, uh, it seems like something that that we should have some pretty good clarity on. Yeah, I know that's been done in the past as well.

Yep.

So could you speak maybe to what you think is unique about the language today?

Yeah, this this current bill has a couple uh provisions that concern us. One o one of them is that the the process is inconsistent with what we've done previously, some with some of the other settlement agreements.

Okay.

Um in in in our opinion it exposes us to additional legal uh liabilities that

And when you say inconsistent with prior, in what way is is it inconsistent?

Uh the distribution mechanism being through the United States, um we've done this through through parties in the past and other mechanisms in the past.

Okay.

Um but the other uh aspect of the bill that has us concerned is that it seems to ask the secretary of interior to mediate an intraparty dispute at the tribe,

Mm-hmm.

that we're very concerned about. We we typically try to stay out of those intraparty disputes.

And you and you all haven't done that before?

No, we typically do not. We we try to stay out of intratribal disputes as best we can.

OK, well I I can appreciate that. I'll look I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts on how we can get it.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. You have my time.

Thank you, Senator. Uh, let me ask a a couple of questions. Um. uh, Mr. Mercier on S thirty four seventy five. Um, uh, and again I think it's important to note that there has been a great persistence in in pursuing this settlement. I think you have noted that as well. Um, i- in your testimony, uh, the department states that any settlement should be, quote, responsible with taxpayer dollars and, quote, serve the national interest. Um, Do you have concerns, um, regarding this settlement, um, given those standards? In other words, are you saying that the department believes that the settlement is not a responsible use of taxpayer dollars or do not serve the national interest? And and if so, what leads you to that conclusion?

Thank you, uh, Chairman, for the question. Um, no, I I don't think we're making that up. I think we are not taking a position at this time on the bill. and would be very open to having further conversations with the sponsors and, uh, the tribes about the bill.

So, um, my my understanding is that the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs, which serves as the traditional government, uh, withdrew from the litigation. They're not party to any final settlement agreement. Does the department have any concerns about the absence of of MNCC from this settlement? And a in other words, does withdrawing from this uh uh withdrawing from the settlement create any risks about implementation or future claims or just the concern about settlement overall?

Uh to be honest, uh Chairman, I I you know um there's l I think many different aspects about the bill that we would not wanna have a conversation with the sponsors and and the committee about uh I'm I can't speak to that one in particular, um but uh I we are open to further conversations for sure.

Okay. Well, as we as we move through these bills, um and again, whether it's it's going through what should be the easy things on some of the technical assistance that's work with you,

Yep.

uh but I know the bill sponsor um uh uh would again like to be able to to advance this, so if we can have f more discussion with the department on on this particular one, we would appreciate that.

Absolutely.

Um uh moving to S thirty two. Ninth. which Senator Heinrich just spoke to. In your testimony you you expressed support for the transfer, um, but when you were in the house testifying on the companion bill, you specifically noted the need to ensure the relocation of all the federal tenants that are occupying, um, the property before the transfer can occur. Um, so who, I guess the question to you is who's occupying that property now and is ninety days enough time to accomplish the relocation.

Yeah, thank you for the question. Um, Madam Chair, so and I believe my testimony was about six months ago and the house on that,

Okay.

so I'm not sure whether there are still tenants at the current location. We would need to work with the general service administration to confirm. But I'm pretty confident now six months later, if the bill were to pass, ninety days should be sufficient.

Okay, okay. Well, we'll check on that. And you did refer to some modifications that uh you thought might be needed. Uh, but again, I'll I'll take it that that that was six months ago, so we may be at be in a better place, correct?

That's correct, yes.

Got it, got it, thank you. Let me turn to you, Mister Mister Crockett, and uh uh I'll begin with uh S twenty seven ninety six. This is the Uvadium uh San Manuel Nation land exchange. Um uh h Forest Service has historically treated fee to fee land exchanges as as transactions that require appraisal. uh, to determine the value of the lands and to ensure that, basically we're talking about equal value here. Um, this proposed exchange does involve a, a tribe, but it does not include a land into trust component, and therefore seems to be consistent with the type of fee-to-fee exchange for which the Forest Service has traditionally required valuation and and equalization procedures. But the bill itself does not expressly require an equal value determination or or appraisals of of the parcels. Um, is this something that we should be we should be considering? You you've spoken in support of the bill, um, but do we need to look at uh at equal value? Um, uh, I guess I'm concerned that we might have a situation where you have uh the the Forest Service departing from the valuation principles that ordinarily govern govern federal land exchanges in this case. So, walk me through um where we are with that.

Yeah, so thank you. Thank you for the question. And um so we are anchoring to our standard guy our standard um guides related to the appraisal for this which does actually require uh equal value. And we've already done the appraisals. The appraisal was submitted to the the tribe last week. Or um, yeah, last week.

Okay.

Uh, so I feel like I know we're managing both the administrative aspect aspect of this as well as the legislative act aspect of it uh but we've taken care of the equal value concern through the appraisal.

So, so you're doing the appraisal, cuz the reason I ask is we're as as you probably know, we deal with uh uh situations like this in Alaska. We've got one situation with Chugach um Alaska uh, seeking a land exchange, um, and, uh, we have been criticized for the fact that it is not a traditional equal value exchange. It's more of an acre for acre, um, settlement given the the oil spill, uh, trust, uh, fund under the Recovery Act. So, what I'm hearing you say is you are, you are following the practices, um, that require uh, appraisal and equal value exchange.

Correct. And the Chewgash study was just a little bit different because the Dingell Act required us to do the provide a twenty twenty-two report to Congress that had a lot of specificity in it uh in which we anchored to in our uh in my previous testimony uh for it so that, the Chewgash um land exchange is different because it did identify specific parcels of acre acres, but for this land exchange we are looking at uh, the appraisal as a primary mechanism for providing equal value.

And that appraisal then comes back at at e- so you will select equal value based on that appraisal.

Correct. And it doesn't have to be acre for acre. It's just the value, the equal value associated with it.

K. K. Um, I I I understand that the Forest Service has been working with the tribe to accomplish the land exchange administratively. Um, Is is that still going forward? In other words, why are we doing legislation if you think that you can do this administratively?

Yeah, we've actually made a lot of progress administratively. Uh, signed the decision memo on it as recently as Monday. Uh, and like I said earlier, the appraisal, uh, has been done and delivered to the tribe. We are in the final stages of signing the, um, uh, the subsurface mineral, um, uh, declarations. Once that's, once that leaves the agency we'll get departmental approval. That will in turn be uh submitted to the Bureau of Interf- or uh Bureau of Land and Management and then the ball will be in their court to approve that, and then back to the agency for final uh disposition. So we are making a lot of progress administratively uh on the land exchange.

So that is still going on. You're not h- you're not pulling back on that in light of the legislation that you're testifying to today.

Ab- absolutely not. We are moving full steam ahead. on the uh the administrative aspects of the land exchange.

Right. Okay, in the in the written testimony you ask for exemptions from uh National Historic Preservation Act uh as well as NEPA why why are you asking for these exemptions?

Uh so once again the uh so in my written testimony we've made a lot of progress since uh since my written testimony because we've signed the NEPA already, it's kind of a moot point to ask for that exemption, but the original reason for asking for the that exemption was to be responsive to the one hundred and twenty day time frame uh that was l- uh that was part of the legislation. We thought that exemption would help us move through NEPA faster, uh but we've tackled all those hurdles administratively at this point, so it's not needed.

Okay, so in other words we're further down the road with this legislation as well.

Absolutely.

Uh, let me ask one question with regards to the Pitt River Land Transfer Act. Um, it appears that some of the lands would be transf- uh, that would be transferred to Pitt River are currently subject to special use permits and some other easements, um, including with electric utilities. Um, they were perhaps not fully detailed in the bill a- uh or properly excluded from the transfer. You referenced in your testimony, um, special use permits and and the need to accurately represent them geographically, I think is what you said.

Mm-hmm.

I mean, is this just a situation of getting the maps right?

That's exactly what it is. The acreage is accurate, but the maps are off, and so we need to produce the updated maps to reflect the uh the appropriate amount of acreage, and that's the minor technical correction that we wanna make.

Okay, all right. So then uh to to Director Mercier, do we need to have inter-agency agreements or MOUs to ensure a transfer of the management responsibilities, um whether it's fire management and access if if this bill becomes law then?

Um thank you Madam Chair for the question, so yeah if if the la the bill becomes law, this is a mandatory acquisition and we will take the land into trust we obviously want to still coordinate with the neighboring uh Forest Service and other jurisdictions, so we'll want those.

Okay.

I don't know if uh we need to say we would have to have them to to move forward.

Okay, so that's something that we may look to. Um I don't have any further questions of of either of you. Senator Armstrong, anything further? Um, would either of you care to add anything that you feel needs to be reinforced before the committee um on any of the matters that we have have before us today?

Uh, if I may, Madam Chair, I just said uh we do look forward to working on some technical amendments to many

Please.

of the bills uh and of course with uh Senator Armstrong on the Quapaw uh uh bill itself and then with the the senators from New York on the um the the Mohawk one as well, please. Thank you.

Good. Good, Mister Crockett.

And nothing additional from me, supportive of all three bills. Looking forward to the minor technical corrections and moving them forward.

Good. Well, we appreciate, uh, again, uh, a level of cooperation with the department, with the agencies, um, to advance this. As Senator, uh, uh, Schatz mentioned, um, we like to do bills in this committee. We actually like to advance some some policy initiatives that people good people have been working on for a long period of time. And so, uh, thank you for for helping us advance just that. And with that, the committee stands adjourned.