►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
Okay,
welcome
everybody
to
our
last
select
feral
nature,
Resource
Management
Committee
of
the
interim,
we're
here
nice
and
warm
under
under
the
extension
here
in
Cheyenne,
so
Mr
Fuller.
Why
don't
you
go
ahead
and
call
the
roll.
C
D
B
All
right
well
we'll
go
ahead
and
take
up
our
first
topic:
that's
Severance
tax
reduction,
Bill,
obviously
something
quite
a
few
things
have
changed
since
we
last
saw
this.
The
last
iteration
of
this
bill
in
the
previous
session
I
think
there's
some
question
as
to
whether
the
federal
government
was
going
to
do
exactly
what
they
told
us.
You
were
going
to
do
as
surprised.
That
was
a
question,
but
apparently
it
was
in
the
house.
B
Minerals
committee
we've
since
removed
any
doubt
about
what
the
federal
government
is
going
to
do
regarding
increasing
Federal
royalty
rates
and
so
I
still
maintain
that
the
regulatory
burden
the
federal
government
puts
on
alone
gas
development
is
significant
and
the
actual
experience
I
have
with
as
a
CIS,
and
is
that
even
when
it
was
12
and
a
half
percent,
those
companies
avoided
the
federal
Nexus
like
the
plague.
That's
how
significant
the
regulatory
burden
was
for
our
oil
and
gas
developers
when
they
do
drill
into
Federal
minerals.
B
So
the
idea
here
is
to
provide
stability,
not
just
for
industry,
but
also
for
state
and
local
government,
which
has
negatively
affected
by
this
Federal
action
and
we'll
get
in
the
details
here
in
a
little
bit.
But
with
that
Mr
Fuller,
why
don't
you
come
up
and
present
the
latest
and
greatest
iteration
of
this
build
draft
so
feel
free
to
take
it
away.
E
Okay,
Mr
chairman
committee
members,
23
lso
143
working
draft
0.8.
This
is
a
bill.
The
committee
requested
at
the
July
meeting.
It
is
based
on
22
Senate
file
84
and
would
provide
refunds
for
specified
oil
and
gas
and
coal
Severance
taxes
based
on
increased
Federal
mineral
royalty
rates,
and
then
it
would
also
transfer
Federal
mineral
royalties
that
are
received
to
the
severance
tax
distribution
account
to
make
the
decrease
in
Severance
taxes
whole,
as
well
as
to
make
a
transfer
to
that
account
to
make
any
decreased
ad
valorem
taxes
whole.
E
E
This
would
specify
that,
notwithstanding
the
distribution
requirements
under
that
section,
starting
in
24
2024
and
each
year
thereafter,
the
state
treasurer
would
be
required
to
transfer
funds
from
that
Severance
tax
distribution.
Account.
Excuse
me
from
the
federal
mineral
royalty
account
that's
created
in
94601a
to
the
severance
tax
distribution
account
in
the
following
amounts.
So
then,
on
line
18
there
would
be
a
transfer
of
fmrs
to
the
severance
tax
distribution
account
for
the
refunds.
E
Page
three
line,
eight
would
be
a
separate
amount,
that's
equal
to
what
is
calculated
in
39
13
111e,
which
I'll
describe
in
a
moment
and
concerns
ad
valorem
taxes.
So
if
there
is
a
decrease
in
the
taxable
value
of
property
as
a
result
of
the
increased
Federal
mineral
royalty
rate,
there
would
be
an
amount
of
fmrs
transferred
for
distribution
as
ad
valorem
taxes
are
distributed,
then
page
3
line
13.
This
is
similar
to
language
that
was
in
Senate
file
84.
before
the
treasure
transfers.
Any
funds
required.
E
E
E
Then
page
four
line.
23
is
a
new
subsection
in
39
13
111,
which
concerns
the
distribution
of
ad
valorem
taxes
and
not
later
than
a
date,
and
the
committee
may
wish
to
consider
whether
a
date
is
needed
or
not,
and
if
so,
what
that
date
should
be.
The
department
of
revenue
must
calculate
an
amount
equal
to
the
reduced
ad
valorem
taxable
value
that
results
from
any
increase
in
the
federal
mineral
royalty
rate.
E
The
staff
comment
on
page
five,
just
notes
the
the
need
to
consider
whether
a
date
for
making
that
calculation
is
necessary.
Then
page
five
beginning
on
line
22.
This
amends
39
14
109,
which
concerns
Severance
taxes
for
coal,
so
starting
with
mineral
production
on
and
after
January
21
2024,
the
taxpayer
would
be
entitled
to
receive
a
refund
on
a
per
property
basis,
a
proportion
of
severance
taxes
that
are
paid
under
3914
A2
through
six
and
those
are
the
statutory
Severance
taxes
that
excludes
the
1.5
constitutional
Severance
tax.
E
The
refund
so
now
on
page
six
line,
five,
the
refund
that's
provided,
must
be
in
accordance
with
the
following
is
equal
to
the
amount
of
any
increased
royalty
levied
against
taxpayers
as
a
result
of
any
cumulative
increase
in
the
federal
mineral
royalty
rate,
from
the
rate
that
was
in
place
on
July,
1st
2021.,
and
then
that
would
be
multiplied
by
the
gross
percentage
share
of
the
State
under
30
USC
191a
and
after
deducting
the
mandatory
administrative
costs
that
are
imposed
under
30,
USC
191b
and
then
the
amount
that
amount
would
be
multiplied
by
75
percent
to
approximate
the
reduced
value
of
the
gross
product
resulting
from
the
increase
in
the
fmr
percentage.
E
Then
page
seven
line
one
sub,
paragraph
B.
The
refund
can't
exceed
the
total
liability.
So
if
the
refund
is
somehow
more
than
that
liability,
you
don't
get
you
don't
get
the
excess
page,
seven
line.
Seven.
The
taxpayer
has
the
burden
to
establish
the
amount
of
any
refund
line.
E
11,
the
taxpayer
must
apply
for
the
refund
on
or
before
July
1
of
the
following
year
of
production,
on
a
form
that
the
Department
of
Revenue
prescribes
and
the
department
shall,
by
rule
prescribed
procedures
and
other
applicable
timelines
under
which
a
taxpayer
who
is
eligible
for
a
refund
can
apply
and
receive
that
refund,
and
then
page
7
line
20
upon
receipt
of
an
application
and
review
that
a
taxpayer
is
eligible
for
a
refund.
The
department
must
issue
that
refund
page
eight
beginning
with
line
two.
E
This
is
3914
209
This
concerns,
Severance
taxes
for
oil
and
gas,
and
the
language
is
virtually
identical
to
to
what
I
just
described
for
the
coal,
so
the
process,
the
calculation.
All
of
that
is
the
same
until
we
get
to
page
to
page
10
line
12
and
no,
and
this
provides
that
no
refunds
for
oil
and
gas
Severance
taxes
shall
be
provided
when
the
monthly
average
so
no
refund
for
any
month,
where
the
monthly
average
of
of
WTI
daily
prices
per
barrel
is
80
or
more
and
then
for
gas.
E
The
staff
comment
on
page
11
just
notes
that,
unlike
the
tax
refund
for
coal,
there
is
this
minimum
price
for
oil
and
gas,
after
which
the
refund
would
not
apply.
Then
page
11
line
15.
This
would
create
a
new
subsection,
39,
14801
and
notwithstands
the
typical
distribution
requirements
that
funds
that
are
transferred
into
this.
The
severance
tax
distribution
account
from
the
fmrs
to
provide
the
refunds
and
to
provide
distributions
under
this
section
and
under
39
13
111e.
E
So
the
ad
valorem
must
be
accounted
for
separately
and
they
are
continuously
appropriated
to
the
Department
of
Revenue
for
funding
the
refunds,
making
the
severance
tax
distributions
and
making
the
ad
valorem
distributions,
then
line
26,
beginning
on
September,
1st
2024
and
then
each
September.
Thereafter,
the
department
of
revenue
must
annually
report
to
Joint
revenue
on
the
number
of
applicants
for
refunds
and
the
number
and
amount
of
refunds
that
are
provided
as
well
as
the
amounts
that
are
separately
accounted
for
and
distributed
both
under
this
section
and
under
the
ad
valorem
taxes.
E
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr
Fuller
I
do
appreciate
your
work,
I.
Think
one
of
the
feedback
I
heard
from
the
previous
bills.
I
was,
you
know
apparently
too
confusing
I
think
you've
removed
that
excuse,
at
least
with
your
work
here.
It's
made
it
pretty
easy
to
follow
and
just
appreciate
your
your
work
in
the
streamlining
it
and
also
working
in
the
ad
War
and
Peace,
which
was
missing
out
of
Senate
Valley
for
last
year.
So
thank
you
very
much
any
questions
committee
for
go
ahead.
A
Mr
chairman,
with
with
your
permission,
I,
have
a
number
of
questions.
I
want
to
let
staff
finish
the
presentation,
instead
of
interrupting
so
okay
I'm
on
page
three
right
at
the
top
of
the
page
Roman
at
2.
Where
does
the
16
and
and
two-thirds
amount
come
from?
Please
yeah.
E
Mr,
chairman
chairman
Burkhart
I'm,
not
sure
I
still
fully
understand
that
that
was
an
amendment
from
Senate
file.
84.
E
I
believe
the
way
that
chairman
boner
came
up
with
this
was
that
16
and
the
16
and
two-thirds
is
the
quotient
of
12
and
a
half
divided
by
75.,
which
half
of
since
half
of
the
reduction
is
accounted
by
Severance
taxes.
This
is
to
add
that
lost
Severance
tax
as
a
proportion
you
know.
E
The
the
other
thing
I
would
note
is
that
this
percentage
also
it
does
reflect
the
current
Federal
mineral
royalty
rate
percentage
that
that
is
being
used
and
I'm,
not
sure,
if
that
you
know,
plays
a
role
in
that.
But
that's
that's
where
that
number
comes
from.
B
B
All
right
well,
yeah,
it's
not
the
most
I
guess
intuitive
calculation,
because
it
should
be
like
12
and
a
half
percent
right.
This
is
the
the
our
attempt
to
make
the
severance
tax
account
haul,
because
when
you
increase
the
royalty
rate,
it's
like
a
deduction
on
your
income
taxes.
It
actually
reduces
how
much
these
companies
will
pay
in
Severance
tax
because
they're
paying
more
of
a
royalty,
and
so
when
you
do
all
the
calculations,
the
department
Revenue
can
when
they
testify.
B
They
can
testify
as
to
why
we
came
up
with
you
know,
as
basically
a
25
reduction
overall
in
the
overall
taxes,
and
these
companies
will
pay
based
off
the
increase,
and
so
it's
basically
that
12
and
a
half
percent
divided
by
the
75
percent.
That's
where
you
get
16
and
and
two-thirds
because
we're
all
we're
all
based
out
of
basing
it
off
this
whole.
B
A
E
B
Really
am
confused
Mr
chairman,
so
I
mean
the
in
addition
to
the
rebate.
The
other
main
objective
of
this
bill
is
to
make
our
revenue
streams
as
if
this
never
happened,
and
so,
if
we
absent
this
bill,
we're
going
to
have
an
increase
in
fmrs,
because
this
day
gets
49
percent
of
these
Pharaoh
mineral
royalties,
which
are
now
higher
than
they
were,
and
so
this
is
making
the
severance
taxes
whole.
So
again,
more
fmrs
fewer
Severance
taxes.
C
A
All
right,
okay,
so
Mr
Fuller,
moving
on
I'm
on
page
four
and
I
hate
to
do
this,
but
I
I've
read
this
like
I,
don't
know
a
dozen
times
and
each
time
I
read
it
I
get
more
confused.
So
please
just
bear
with
me.
A
So
in
E
on
line
23,
we
talk
about
calculate
amount
equal
to
the
reduction
in
ad
valorem
tax
value.
Is
that
a
direct
relationship
between
the
ad
valorem
value
and
federal
mineral
royalties.
E
Chairman
chairman,
Burkhardt
I,
believe
the
reason
this
is
in
here
is
I
think
that
taxable
value
does
account
for
the
fmrs
in
its
calculation
and
the
idea
being.
If
there's
an
increase
in
fmrs
that
an
operator
pays,
there
would
be
a
decrease
in
the
taxable
value.
That's
calculated,
okay,.
A
A
E
And
Mr
chairman
chairman
Burkhart
that
I
think
the
language
online
is
25
and
26.,
make
that
a
direct
relationship
so
you're
only
calculating
an
amount
equal
to
the
reduced
value
that
results
from
the
increase
in
fmr,
so
any
sort
of
other
variable.
E
You
know
how
you
get
to
that
point.
I
I,
don't
know
you.
A
A
I
think
I'm
just
going
to
confuse
the
issue.
If
I
ask
this
question
so
I'll
just
go
on:
let's
go
to
page
six.
We
talk
about
75
percent
to
approximate
the
reduced
value
of
the
gross
product.
Again,
that's
an
approximation.
We
really
don't
know,
am
I
correct.
E
Mr,
chairman
chairman
Burkhart,
that
percentage
is
and
I
don't
I'm
not
going
to
confess
to
know
the
math
behind
all
of
that.
But
I
think
that
is
a
calculation
that
was
performed
based
on
the
increase
in
the
fmra,
with
the
reduction
and
Severance
tax
value
that
that
is
the
percentage
you
would
get
if
you
plug
those
numbers
in
and
I'm
Mr,
chairman
I'm,
sorry
I
don't
have
the
math
okay
lockdown.
A
B
Lots
of
notes
please
and
that
I'm
searching
through
my
email
allows
that
you
know
some
work,
that
they
did,
that
has
a
nice
spreadsheet
attached
to
it,
that
you
know,
and
we
can
have
them
go
over
the
details
or
I
could
forward
you
the
the
the
calculations
that
I
use
to
go
ahead
and
come
up
with
that
number.
It
should
be
a
part
of
our
community
materials
from
about
a
year
ago,
but
yeah,
obviously
we're
being
a
pretty
solid
number.
A
We
we
give
an
exception
if
WTI
Crude
is
over
eighty
dollars
and
I
think
that
should
probably
be
eighty
dollars
a
barrel.
Well,
it
says
per
barrel
sorry
and
then
four
dollars
per
therm
and
that,
where
did
those
numbers
come
from.
E
Yep
Mr,
chairman
chairman
Burkhart
I,
believe
I'm,
not
sure
if
those
were
an
amendment
to
Senate
file
84
last
year,
I
believe
they
were,
but
those
were
just
the
same
numbers
taken
from
that
Amendment.
B
Yeah,
that
was
a
discussion
we
had
on
the
Senate
side.
You
know
pretty
standard
discussion.
You
know
we
shouldn't
if
things
are
going
really
well
for
the
oil
and
gas
industry
in
particular,
you
know
we
want
it.
You
know
make
sure
that
the
state
still
gets
its.
You
know,
I
guess
we
still
want
to
be
extraordinarily
dependent
upon
them
for
our
revenues,
and
so
that
was
something
that
we
put
on
on.
The
Senate
side
is
from
a
senate
leadership
concerning
the
from
Appropriations.
A
Spot
Market,
it
was
hanging
around
30
I,
think
it
still
is
so
so,
okay
and
I
see
we
do
not
include
the
Canadian
sour
index
because
a
lot
of
gas,
a
lot
of
oil
in
Wyoming
is
is
sour.
Factory
refinery
in
Sinclair
runs
on
mostly
sour
crude,
so
I
think
that
is
probably
something
we
need
to
include.
A
Thank
you,
so
Mr
Ford
a
few
sessions
back.
We
did
pass
some
Severance
tax
breaks
for
the
oil
and
gas
industry
with
some
Tipping
Point
numbers
in
there.
How
did
these?
Do
you
recall
how
these
compare
to
those
numbers
from
that
bill?.
E
Mr
chairman
chairman
Burkhart
I,
can
look
quickly
and
I'm.
Okay,
I.
A
E
So
Mr
chairman
chairman
Burkhart
I'm,
not
sure
there
would
be
I
think
the
only
thing
there
could
possibly
be
a
surplus
would
be
the
ad
valorem,
there's
three
kind
of
different
buckets
that
would
be
transferred.
The
first
would
be
the
you
know,
an
amount
equal
to
the
refunds.
So
you
know,
if
you
don't
apply
for
a
refund,
that
amount's
ever
going
to
be
transferred.
The
amount
transferred
to
make
the
severance
tax
hole
is
based
on
the
amount
of
refunds.
E
A
Mr
Fuller,
it's
calculated
on
the
amount
of
response
they
could
expect
to
receive.
What
I'm
getting
at
is
a
company
either
forgets
they
decide
they
want
to
forego
it
and
in
in
particular
one
particular
company's
refund.
They
don't
claim,
because
it's
up
to
the
company
under
this
bill
to
claim
that
what
happens
to
the
money
in
that
account
then
well.
E
Mr,
chairman
chairman
Burkhart
those
funds.
If
a
refund
is
not
sod,
those
funds
generally
would
not
be
transferred
to
the
severance
tax
distribution
account.
They
would
remain
in
the
fmrs
and
would
be
distributed
as
94601
provides.
Okay,.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Mr
Fuller,
I
I
need
to
digest
all
of
that
and
I'll
wait
for
comments
from
the
Department
of
Revenue.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Senator
Anderson,
you
have
your
hand
up.
F
Yes,
I
had
the
same
question
on
that
page
11.
It
would
appear
to
me
that
that
says
we
are
going
to
take
the
money
from
the
from.
C
F
F
It's
it's
I'm,
getting
two
different,
two
different
Communications
here,
I'm
thinking
that
this
paragraph
says
they
are
going
to
transfer
that
and
then
then
the
the
oil
company
or
coal
or
gas
company
makes
a
claim
on
them,
but
maybe
maybe
I'm
misreading
this
bill
that
first
they
make
the
claim,
and
then
we
put
the
money
in
so
I'm
a
little
confused
on
that
one
also.
Thank
you.
E
And
Mr
chairman
chairman
Anderson,
the
way
I
would
read
page
2
line
18.
This
is
946010
which
is
referenced
in
the
subsection
on
page
11..
E
The
transfer
is
in
an
amount
equal
to
the
funds
necessary
to
provide
the
refunds.
So
if
a
company,
the
way
I
would
read
that
is
if
a
company
does
not
apply
for
a
refund,
the
funds
would
not
be
transferred,
and
perhaps
I'm
I'm
misreading.
That
or
but
that's
how
I
would
read
that
and
then
paragraph
two
which
is
making
the
severance
taxes
whole.
E
That
is
based
on
the
amount
of
the
refunds
that
are
that
are
necessary.
The
one
thing
I
couldn't
speak
to
would
be.
You
know
the
ad
valorem,
because
that
would
take
into
account
the
reduced
taxable
value,
but
I
think
that's
only
intended
to
make
that
whole
versus
you
know
any
excess.
E
You
know,
I,
don't
think
this
would
result
the
way
that
39
13
111e
so
on
page
four
is
drafted
that
that
would
result
in
some
windfall
to
the
ad
valorem,
so
I
think
the
way
it's
drafted.
It
should
be
kind
of
equal
transfers
and
then,
if
there
are
companies
that
do
not
seek
a
refund,
those
funds
would
just
remain
in
in
the
fmrs
and
be
distributed
under
94601.
A
B
I
didn't
further
have
a
calculations
that
I
could
send
to
the
committee
very
quickly
in
terms
of
the
total
amounts,
basically
I
think
off
of
2018
production,
and
you
know
it's
pretty
easy
to
plug
into
Excel
spreadsheet,
so
you
can
mess
around
based
off
of
production
and
the
you
know
overall
price
of
the
of
the
of
the
product,
but
yeah
I
mean
it's
tens
of
millions
of
dollars
is
what
we're
talking
about
that?
If
nothing
else,
we
don't
do
anything
it's
going
to
affect
our
revenue
streams.
B
To
that
extent
and
once
again
the
whole
idea
is
for
it
to
be
Revenue
neutral
and
it
is
for
the
state
and
local
governments.
But
it's
important
to
understand
the
scope
of
this,
of
the
impact
of
this
Federal
change
on
our
revenue
streams
for
state
and
local
government.
If
we
do
nothing
so
yeah,
we
can
send
that
out.
I
have
that
in
my
inbox
somewhere
and
I
can
send
that
to
the
committee
that
where
is
pretty
easy
spreadsheet
to
manipulate.
B
G
Good
morning,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
Brenda
Henson,
Department
of
Revenue,
director
and
I,
have
with
me
Craig
granvik
who's.
The
mineral
tax
division
administrator
I
certainly
appreciate
the
questions
this
morning,
because,
quite
honestly,
there
has
been
a
great
deal
of
discussion
and
back
and
forth
in
trying
to
it
was
fairly
easy
to
identify
the
concept
of
what
the
intention
was.
But
the
actual
workings
of
how
this
should
be
implemented
has
been
an
ongoing
discussion
for
a
couple
of
years
now,
and
we
certainly
appreciate
being
involved
in
that
process.
G
From
the
you
know:
30
000
foot
level.
Definitely
what
this
is
intended
to
do
is
to
look
at
Federal,
mineral
royalties
and
the
funds
that
Wyoming
receives
from
those
Federal
mineral
royalties
and
transfer
those
to
the
the
severance
tax
account
and
then
provide
a
refund
to
producers
of
an
amount.
That
is
the
difference
of
the
severance
tax
that
is
paid
in
the
ad
valorem
tax
that
is
paid
and
how
those
increase
Federal
mineral
royalties
affected
that
taxable
value,
and
so
in
doing
that.
G
This
bill
requires
that
the
information
come
to
the
producer
because,
honestly,
the
Department
of
Revenue,
we
are
a
self-reporting
state.
We
don't
have
access
to
the
information
that
would
be
necessary
to
calculate
what
that
amount
would
be.
The
other
thing
we
don't
have
access
to
is
we
don't
have
access
to
those
contracts?
We
don't
know
what
they're
paying
you
know.
We
assume
they're
paying
the
12
and
a
half
percent
on
those.
Currently.
G
The
other
piece
of
this
is
that
it's
only
new
leases
is
our
understanding
that
this
would
be
applicable
to
it
wouldn't
impact
any
current
leases.
So
that
being
said,
the
only
place
we
can
get
that
information
is
from
the
producer
and
Mr
grenvic
will
go
through
some
of
that
administrative
piece
and
what
we're
going
to
need
from
those
producers
and
and
to
implement
this
process.
G
The
other
part
of
that
that
is
significant
in
this
bill
versus
last
year's
bill
is
the
component
to
make
taxing
entities
at
the
local
level
whole.
That
in
itself
was
a
little
bit
overwhelming.
In
that
we
know,
we've
got
for
2022.
We
had
611
taxing
authorities
that
receive
funds
from
property
taxes.
We
have
over
600
tax
districts.
That
means
that
the
entities
within
the
boundaries
of
that
tax
District
have
the
same.
Have
the
authority
to
Levy
those
taxes,
so
the
only
way
that
we
can
drill
down
to.
G
We
can
get
to
the
difference
in
taxable
value
based
on
the
information
that's
produ
provided
by
the
producer,
but
we
don't
know
what
the
difference
in
tax
dollar
was.
Unless
we
get
down
to
the
tax
District
level,
and
once
we
get
to
the
tax
District
level,
we
know
what
the
mill
Levy
is,
for
example,
in
this
bill
on
page
11.,
it
talks
about
us
providing
a
report.
September
of
2025..
G
G
So
the
way
the
valuation
works
for
ad
valorem
is
that
prior
year
production
we
certify
that
to
County
Assessors
no
later
than
June
1st
of
the
year
following
the
month
of
production.
That's
when
the
actual
assessed
value
is
known
and
then
the
mill
levies
aren't
set
until
the
first
part
of
August
of
that
year,
and
so
once
that
is
done,
then
we'll
know
what
the
dollar
amount
is.
G
That
was
the
difference
when
we
take
the
the
net
difference
in
taxable
value
times
those
Mill
levies
per
taxing
district
and
then
we
can
send
a
check
to
the
local
County
Treasurer.
So
it
means
that
we're
only
sending
out
23
checks
or,
however
many
counties
had
producers
that
applied
for
refunds
and
then
it's
the
county,
treasurer's
responsibility
for
Distributing
those
funds
to
the
local
entities,
but
with
that
I
think
it
would
be
best.
G
G
So
we've
got
to
put
some
programming
in
place
that
would
enable
The
Producers
to
re,
apply
for
this
refund
online
on
our
current
system
that
we've
got
where
they're
reporting,
monthly
and
Mr
grinbeck.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
going
over
some
of
those
details,.
H
Good
morning,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
I'm
Craig
grenvic,
the
administrative
mineral
tax
division.
First
I
want
to
thank
Brian
and
and
director
Henson,
it's
much
more
difficult,
trying
to
explain
all
of
these
parts
and
it
is
actually
getting
in
there
and
calculating
the
amounts
so
I'm
glad
I'm,
just
focusing
on
the
calculation.
H
Basically,
all
we're
really
needing
from
the
taxpayers.
The
Producers
is
and
one
different
number,
and
that
is
we
know
what
you
did
pay.
But
what
would
you
have
paid
royalties
on
so
we
can
get
that
figure
from
them
load
it
into
the
same
calculation
we've
already
done,
and
we
can
come
up
with
a
change
in
taxable
value.
That's
that
really
is
fairly
easy
and
from
that
we
know
the
mill
levees,
so
we
can
get
that
distributed
to
the
counties,
get
that
figured
out
also
with
the
16.67
percent.
H
That's,
that
is
the
25
percent
tied
to
the
75
percent,
and
that
number
basically
is
just
what
percentage
of
the
total
increase
in
federal
royalties
really
should
be,
should
be
the
refund
because
of
the
change
in
taxable
value.
Now
there
are
variables
that
impact
that
the
severance
tax
rate
and
the
local
Ad
Valorem.
H
Be
those
variables
really
don't
have
that
much
of
an
impact,
they
don't
swing
more
than
a
percentage,
and
so
that's
why
the
75
percent
you
know
it's,
you
know
we
could
get
down
to
the
nitty-gritty
and
it
could
be
74.3875
or
76.012,
but
the
75
would
cover
coal,
oil
and
gas,
no
matter
what
methodology
valuation
methodology
we're
using
so
hey.
You
know
that
was
a
pretty
pretty
tight
estimate
really
cutting
across
all
boundaries.
All
minerals
impacting
this
bill.
H
Basically,
we
would
require
them
to
give
that
number
to
us
that
the
once
a
year,
basically,
they
can
send
it
to
us
the
same
time
they
do
their
normal
yearly
filing.
So
you
know
administratively,
there's
really
not
that
much
involved,
particularly
in
the
beginning.
There
won't
be.
This
doesn't
apply
to
everything
across
the
board.
We
don't
have
to
retool
everything
just
looking
at
the
new
leases,
but
it
will
require
us
to.
You
know,
have
another
separate
program
and
we've
gone
to
our
vendor
and
they've.
Given
us
an
estimate
that
was
right
around.
D
H
Thousand
dollars,
and
and
compared
to
what
we've
just
gone
through
with
implementing
the
estimated
everyone,
this
should
be
far
simpler
or
simpler.
G
With
that
again
bottom
line
in
order
to
make
this
bill
work,
Mr
chairman
is
the
information
from
the
producer
what
they
paid
in
federal
mineral
royalties,
based
on
that
higher
lease
contract
amount
and
then
taking
and
calculating
had
that
percentage
been
12
and
a
half
percent
instead
of
the
increased
amount.
What
would
they
have
paid
in
federal
mineral
royalties?
H
Mr,
chairman
representative
Burkhart,
we
don't
have
that
information
directly,
there's
a
couple
of
variables
there,
but
actually
the
department
of
audit
is
the
one
that
has
direct
access
to
honor
System
and
they
would
be
the
one
that
would
be
the
agency
that
would
be
able
to
take
a
look
at
individual
leases
and
make
that
determination.
I,
don't
know
myself,
and
maybe
individuals
from
the
BLM
would
be
able
to
respond
to
that
as
well.
They
would
know
how
many
new
leases
are
under
the
under
the
higher
Federal
royalty
rate.
B
All
right,
Mr
chairman,
that
we
sell
is
just
a
few
months
ago,
so
I
managed
to
take
at
least
a
year
or
two
to
actually
get
those
into
production
at
the
earliest
and
so
I'm
sure
they'd
have
more
of
a
specific
answer
if
they
want
to
come
on
down
at
some
point,
but
yeah
I
think
that
that's
another
one
of
the
other
discussions
we
had
last
year
is
okay.
It
says
premature,
I,
don't
think
it
is.
B
At
this
point
we
started
talking
about
2024
production,
I,
I
guess
you
could
very
easily
have
some
of
these
leases
that
just
were
sold
as
late
latest
sale,
be
in
production
by
24.
and
when
we
talk
about
the
lawsuit
regarding
the
Eis
I
have
some
very
specific
feedback
for
that,
because
you
know
it
looks
like
in
that.
Well,
so
they
just
sued
based
off
of
all
the
leases
that
have
happened.
The
past
two
years
and
I
personally
witnessed
drilling
on
those
leases
on
our
own
family
properties.
B
A
G
Mr,
chairman
representative,
Burkhart
I,
don't
believe
so
initially.
At
any
rate,
we
don't
anticipate
that
this
is
it's
one
of
those
things
where
you
have
to
put
the
programming
in
place,
whether
we
have
one
applicant
or
we
have
100
applicants,
and
so
initially
I.
Don't
believe
that
that
is
going
to
Impact
Staff
I
would
note
that,
as
a
result
of
the
monthly
ad
valorem
during
the
supplemental
budget
request,
I'll
be
asking
for
one
additional
staff
member
in
the
mineral
tax
division.
G
Mr,
chairman
representative
Burkhart,
we
are
a
self-reporting
state
in
that
Monthly.
Our
producers
report
to
us
that
taxable
value
for
severance
tax
and
we're
using
the
initial
report
as
the
estimate
for
monthly
ad
valorem.
As
we
have
implemented
the
program
and
then
it's
reconciled
to
the
gross
products
report,
that's
required
by
statutes,
so
they're
reporting
monthly
for
severance
tax,
the
majority
of
them
we
do
have
some
monthly
filers,
but
or
excuse
me
annual
filers,
but
I
won't
get
into
that,
but
the
majority
of
them
are
reporting
monthly.
G
Then
we
have
a
Reconciliation
process
that
we
look
at
their
gross
products
report.
That's
reported
to
us
in
February
of
the
Year
following
production
for
that
production
year
and
we
certify
values
and
so
and
then,
of
course,
there's
the
audit
process
that
follows
after
that
for
some
of
the
accounts.
So
basically
we're
monitoring,
but
we
are
a
self-reporting
state.
Thank.
A
A
I
might
have
missed
something
like
I
said
it
I'm
really
foggy
this
morning.
So.
E
Chairman
Burkhart,
it
does
not
specifically
say
new
leases.
What
it
does
say,
though,
is
that
the
refund
is
an
amount
equal
to
the
increased
percentage,
and
so
an
old
lease
would
not
have
that
increased
percentage
and
the
way
I
would
read
that
would
not
the
refund
would
be
zero,
because
there's
no
difference
in
that
royalty
rate
percentage.
Okay,
thank
you.
E
B
Further
questions
to
the
Department
of
Revenue,
okay,
well,
I
appreciate
all
your
diligence
and
work
on
this
over
the
past
year
or
two:
it's
not
a
it's
a
simple
concept:
A,
more
complex
execution
and
when
I'm
prepared
to
explain
my
sank.
Colleagues
is
that's
you
know,
maybe
it's
due
to
the
fact
that
we
have
very
complex
revenue
streams
and
that's
a
decision
legislature
made.
So
you
know
this
is
the
bill
is
complex
because
of
the
way
that
we
Shuffle
money
around
it's
but
I.
E
Okay
and
Mr
chairman,
just
in
response
to
a
couple
of
the
previous
questions,
the
fiscal
note
actually
did
not
specify
a
specific
dollar
amount
of
what
would
be
impacted.
It
basically
outline
the
calculations
that
that
would
be
made
to
determine
that
in
terms
of
chairman
burkhart's
question
on
the
trigger
points,
for
the
other
exceptions
that
bill
and
Senate
file
or
in
2019
Senate
file,
134
actually
did
not
pass.
E
What
was
in
that
bill,
though
at
least
for
the
sour
crude
was
WCS
Western
Canadian
select
that
was
set
at
60.
As
of
the
joint
conference
committee
report
in
2020,
the
legislature
did
pass
an
exemption
for
production
from
2020
through
2025,
and
those
trigger
points
were
295
for
Henry
Hub
and
fifty
dollars
for
WTI
that
that
subsection,
though
3914
205
in,
doesn't
include
a
reference
to
WCS
foreign.
B
Okay,
so
hopefully
we
got
a
good
understanding
of
how
the
Bell
Works
all
the
work
that
went
into
it
from
the
Department
of
Revenue
and
as
well
as
I,
had
some
County
Treasurer
input
as
well
and
speaking,
which
we
next
up.
We
have
Mr
Owen
from
the
County
Commissioners
Association,
so
feel
free
to
come
on
down.
I
Good
morning,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
I'm
Jeremiah
Riemann,
here
on
behalf
of
the
Wyoming
County
Commissioners
Association,
appreciate
you
taking
up
this
concept.
As
you
know,
an
increase
in
the
federal
mineral
royalty
rate
does
have
an
impact
on
local
government
revenues
and,
in
particular,
State
revenues
to
the
negative
Mr
chairman
there's
been
much
discussion
about
property
taxes
and
that's
certainly
one
angle
of
the
impact
that
will
be
felt
at
the
local
level
for
counties
and
other
beneficiaries
of
property
taxes.
I
But
there
is
also-
and
it's
referenced
in
the
fiscal
note
from
the
bill
previously,
there
will
be
a
reduction
to
Severance
taxes
that
many
beneficiaries
receive
and
counties
receive.
Some
of
that
funding
just
to
kind
of
highlight
that
counties
receive
about
on
average
about
six
million
dollars
annually
that
goes
into
their
General
funds
from
Severance
tax
municipalities
have
similar
figures
in
that
category.
I
There's
a
lesser
amount
and
I:
don't
have
the
specific
figure
for
you
right
now,
but
the
Severance
taxes
are
also
distributed
to
counties
for
their
county
road
construction
maintenance
fund
program,
which
of
course
helps
with
maintenance
issues
across
our
state
on
County
Roads,
Mr
chairman
previously,
our
members
on
Senate
file
84
ultimately
got
to
no
position
on
that
particular
legislation.
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
highlight
a
little
bit
of
the
conversation
that
happened
amongst
my
members.
I
Certainly,
there
was
concern
about
the
revenues
or
the
revenue
impacts
that
I
just
talked
about
to
Severance
tax
to
property
tax.
There
was
also
a
considerable
concern
about
that:
Federal,
minimal
royalty
increase
and
its
potential
impact
on
development
in
the
state
of
Wyoming
and,
ultimately,
the
reverberations
that
would
happen
to
other
Revenue
sources,
sales
and
use
tax
and,
and
certainly
many
others.
Unfortunately,
as
the
fiscal
note
previously,
provided
it's
difficult
for
us
to
understand
what
that
impact
is
and
be
able
to
present
that
to
you
and
I
I
wish
I
had
something
better
for
you.
I
Mr,
chairman
I,
think
another
part
of
the
conversation
that
perhaps
got
us
to
the
no
position
relative
to
that
previous
bill
was
concerns
about
the
potential
for
policy
implications
and
for
me
to
just
kind
of
highlight
that
the
federal
mineral
royalty
share
rate
in
the
state
of
Wyoming
has
always
been
50
percent.
But
some
time
ago
the
federal
government
began
taking
a
two
percent
administrative
fee.
We
at
the
association
of
joked
for
a
long
time
that
we'd
be
happy
to
take
that
two
percent
and
administer
this
program.
I
We'd
be
certainly
be
able
to
do
it
for
a
lot
less
money
than
the
feds
seem
to
be
able
to
do
it.
That
was
a
discretionary
decision
that
was
made
for
a
long
time
through
Congress,
but
it
was,
and
I
don't
have
the
exact
date,
but
more
recently
that
was
actually
put
in
place
permanently
so
for,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
the
federal
mineral
royalty
rate
in
Wyoming
is
48
percent
in
terms
of
the
state
share.
I
So
Commissioners
were
concerned
about
the
policy
implications
of
us
saying
or
being
construed
that
we
don't
need
this
money.
We
can
return
it
back
to
these
producers
and
what
might
Congress
take
from
that
policy
choice?
Would
they
further
try
and
reduce
the
share
that
comes
to
us
I?
Don't
know
whether
that
would
happen
or
not,
but
it
certainly
was
part
of
the
concern
that
my
members
or
some
of
my
members
expressed
that
all
said,
I
think
on
the
whole,
my
members
would
be
much
more
supportive
of
this
particular
legislation.
I
Certainly
I
appreciate
the
consideration
of
ensuring
that
beneficiaries
of
property
taxes
remain
whole.
What
I
don't
see
in
the
bill,
it
might
be
a
consideration
is
those
Severance
taxes
that
also
are
at
risk
with
this
federal
policy
decision
so
certainly
put
that
to
your
consideration
as
as
something
to
perhaps
amend
the
bill
further,
if
you'd
like
I'll,
be
happy
to
take
this
bill
to
our
membership.
B
I
B
Questions-
and
maybe
you
know
you
have
to
get
your
members
input
but
say
things,
do
change
in
terms
of
you
know
what
parties
in
control
of
Congress
here
soon?
Well,
you
think
that
might
alleviate
some
of
your
members
concerns,
and
maybe
even
you
know,
give
an
impetus
for
this
time
to
do
it
when
we
do
have
that
top
cover
Mr.
I
Chairman
I
think
yes,
that
certainly
helps.
Although
it
is
important
to
note
that
that
two
percent
reduction
did
happen
through
various
Republican
administrations
too,
and
we
were
unable
to
able
to
to
flip
it
back
to
our
favor.
To
have
the
state
perhaps
do
that
Administration,
so
I
I
can't
commit
solidly,
then
they'd
be
fully
comfortable,
but
I
think
it
would
help.
B
Right
that
as
well
before
my
time,
do
you
remember
the
circumstances
of
that
decision,
and
it
just
seems
to
me
that
this,
in
the
context
of
this
royalty
rate,
increase
that
it's
highly
partisan,
maneuver
and
something
that
was
very
controversial
when
it
happened
and-
and
you
know,
perhaps
a
situation.
I
hate
to
compare
apples
to
oranges
for
something
that
happened.
I'm
guessing
about
15
years
ago
is.
I
That
correct
Mr,
chairman
you're,
exactly
right.
The
initial
scrape
of
that
two
percent
started
back
in
the
friedenthal
administration
here
in
the
state
of
Wyoming.
B
And
certainly
something
we
had
discussion
on
the
same
floor
as
well
and
like
I,
said:
I
think
that
the
circumstances
have
changed
certainly
from
15
years
ago,
and
that
almost
certainly
it'll
change
here
in
the
next
couple
of
days.
I
think
by
the
time
we
get
to
chain
right,
I'd
like
to
think
that
I
can
still
be
as
mitigated
as
it
could
possibly
be
so
anyways.
Any
further
questions.
Committee.
B
J
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
Travis
diet,
the
executive
director
of
the
Wyoming
mining
Association
in
support
of
the
concept,
and
if
the
smart
people
in
the
room
can
get
the
math
right
and
get
the
bill
right,
we
support
this,
and
mainly
you
know
times
have
changed
a
little
bit
even
before.
J
Even
since
we
came
before
this
Committee
in
support
of
the
bill
in
the
last
in
the
last
session,
we
simply
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
on
the
coal
side
as
of
right
now,
as
as
you
all
know,
there
is
a
an
undergoing
review
of
the
federal
coal
leasing
program.
J
J
There
is
a
moratorium
currently
in
place.
We
can't
lease
any
more
coal
and
I
think
this
is
kind
of
troubling,
because
all
you
have
to
do
is
look
at
the
newspapers
and
look
at
some
of
the
earnings
that
have
come
out.
Cole
is
having
a
very
good
year.
This
year,
Cole
is
in
demand.
The
demand
is
strong.
We
have
sold
out
our
calls
under
contract
Mr,
chairman
representative
Burkhart.
Spot
prices
are
about
17.15
right
now.
J
We're
not
selling
a
lot
on
the
spot.
Market
because
of
our
coal
is
contracted
right
now,
and
those
contracts
are
running
roughly
between
12
and
13,
and
that's
strong.
That's
a
good,
strong
coal
price.
J
The
issue
we're
having
right
now-
probably
talk
a
little
bit
about
it
later
on
today,
we're
having
trouble
getting
our
contracted
coal
to
utilities
right
now.
So
this
should
be
a
banner
year
for
coal,
but
we're
having
certain
issues.
We
can
never
get
anything,
never
get
all
of
our
ducks
in
a
line.
J
It
seems
right
now,
but
you
know
what
what
companies
are
looking
to
right
now,
because
because
of
the
demand
and
there's
going
to
be
demand
in
the
foreseeable
future,
because
we
need
coal,
gas
prices
today
are
about
six
bucks,
we're
competitive
when
they're
about
two
dollars
and
fifty
cents.
J
So
there
is
going
to
be
a
demand
for
coal
and
you're,
seeing
there
was
an
article
in
Bloomberg
just
yesterday
about
some
of
these
premature
closures
of
coal-fired
operations,
postponing
that
because
we
simply
need
coal,
and
so
as
companies
are
planning
right
now
and
looking
to
leasing
more
tracks
of
coal,
they
can't
do
it
right
now,
but
they're
planning
on
it.
We've
got
guys
that
are,
we've
got
operators
that
are
planning
and
looking
to
do
that,
and
so
our
concern
comes
from.
J
You
know
with
some
of
the
uncertainty
in
the
next
couple
of
years
in
Washington
D.C,
and
what
comes
out
of
that?
Are
they
going
to
raise,
raise
the
royalty
on
a
new
lease,
or
are
they
going
to
come
back
and
say
you
know
we're
going
to
raise
and
raise
the
rate
on
a
lease
modification?
We
just
don't
know
and
I
think
with
this
concept,
and
this
bill
Mr
chairman
does
is
it
gives
us
a
little
bit
of
you
know
to
keep
the
tax
burden
low
to
keep
the
tax
burden
low.
J
This
we're
thankful
that
this
body
last
year
passed
the
the
severance
tax
reduction.
That's
helped
because
operating
costs
are
high
right
now
everybody
knows,
and
it's
not
just
the
coal
industry.
It's
everybody.
The
inflation
is
killing
us.
The
diesel
prices
are
killing
us
and
you
know
hell.
We
don't
even
know
if
we're
going
to
have
diesel
here
going
into
the
next
start
of
the
year.
J
J
You
know
anything
we
can
do,
helps
so
in
support
of
the
concept
and
if
we
can
get
it
right
in
the
bill,
we
will
support
it
and
Mr
chairman
with
that.
I
will
stand
for
questions.
B
A
J
Mr,
chairman
representative
Burkhart,
you
know
I
they're,
both
they're,
both
appealing,
if,
if
the
body
chooses
to
go
back
and
grab
another
half
a
percent
on
Severance
taxes,
we're
not
going
to
say
no
to
that
at
all.
You
know
we.
We
support
any
effort
of
this
body
to
keep
our
tax
burden.
You
know
as
low
as
we
can
get
it.
J
You
know
I'd
have
to
go
and
do
the
back
of
the
napkin
math.
They
would
both
benefit
us.
If
you
can
do
both
that'd
be
great
I.
J
Don't
want
to
be
greedy,
Mr,
chairman
representative,
like
I,
say
anything
you
guys
can
do
to
keep
the
burden,
the
tax
burden
and
our
operating
costs
down
to
where
we
can
do
business
and
continue
to
generate
the
revenue
and
jobs
for
Wyoming
is
helpful
and
appreciated.
J
So
just
never
say
anything:
that's.
B
Right
yeah
so
I'm,
just
pointing
maybe
a
little
bit
different
way
of
asking
that
what
would
it
take
for
the
federal
government
to
increase
the
Royal
3
for
Cola
take
could
be
done
administratively.
Does
it
require
an
act
of
Congress?
What's
for
what
would
it
take
to
actually
go.
J
On
Mr
chairman,
both
I
think
the
most
likely
scenario
is,
it
could
be
done
either
way.
The
most
likely
scenario
is
administratively
through
the
through
the
review
of
the
of
the
federal
Coalition
program,
but
sure,
certainly
someone
could
run
a
bill
and
try
to
do
it
too.
So
it
could
be
done
both
ways,
but
the
most
likely
way,
I
would
say,
is
Administrative
right.
B
J
And
I
think
I
think
Mr
Raymond
Raymond
brought
up
a
really
good
point.
Is
you
know
we
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
in
in
the
next
two
years,
we're
going
to
have
a
lame
duck
congress
going
in
for
the
next
few
months,
and
then
you
know
we'll
hope
for
gridlock,
but
what
the
Administration
decides
to
do
and
and
what
a
a
republican
Congress
can
do
to
check
that
there
are
just
really
a
lot
of
unknowns.
A
J
J
You
know
it
all
depends
on
on
demand
and
how
much
we
need
how
much
we
need
to
make
mine
operating
lives
up
there,
which
is
not.
You
know,
that's
not
equivalent
to
to
the
leases.
You
know
they're
running
about
30
years
right
now.
Thank
you.
B
B
B
By
senator
byman,
second
by
representative
McGuire,
okay,
any
discussion
committee,
we
had
some
input
from
the
Department
of
Revenue.
As
far
as
amendments
I
have
to
find
where
that
was
on
page
11.
B
D
B
Say
no
emotion
carries
also
so
if
the
department
could
come
back
up
real
quick
I
have
a
question
on
page
4
line.
23
we
have
a
blank
date.
There
I'm
just
wondering
what
your
input
is
on
that
what
would
be
the
the
best
for
your
administration
of
this
policy
change.
G
Mr,
chairman
again
Brenda
Henson
I,
don't
believe
we
actually
need
a
date.
Even
if
we
were
to
strike
that
and
just
have
the
sentence
State,
the
department
shall
calculate
the
amount
equal
to
the
reduced,
because,
basically,
as
soon
as
we
have
all
the
information
as
soon
as
we
know,
what
that
taxable
value
difference
is
and
what
the
mill
levies
are,
which
are
not
established
until
August
of
the
Year
following
the
year
of
production.
G
B
Very
good,
okay,
so
excited
we
just
heard.
We
want
to
strike
on
page
four
line:
23,
starting
with
not
going
to
your
comma.
Is
that
what
I'm
sure
Mr
for.
E
B
Okay,
we'll
we'll
go
with
the
first
one
for
now,
based
off
the
Departments
feedback,
so
I'll
entertain
a
motion
to
make
that
Amendment
so
moved
by
Sarah
byman.
Second
by
representative
McGuire,
any
discussion
committee
question:
okay,
all
those
in
favor
say
aye
aye,
oh
say
no.
B
K
I
A
Mr
chairman
I
I
served
on
Appropriations.
They
will
cut
it
by
75
percent.
B
B
I,
don't
know
we'll
see
the
former
Appropriations
member
says
no,
it
will
not,
but
it
is
a
one-time
expansion,
okay,
so,
okay,
so
we'll
just
go
with
what
the
department
said
is
the
truth
and
we'll,
hopefully
the
truth
carries
we'll
see
so
Amendment
or
has
removed
that
have
an
amendment
368
thousand
dollars
for
one-time
appropriation
for
new
software.
Is
there
a
second.
B
K
Like
to
propose
an
amendment
on
page
10,
deleting
paragraph
F
and
paragraph
G,
I,
just
don't
think
it's
good
tax
policy
I
think
it
just
muddies
the
water.
What
we're
trying
to
do
a
refund's
a
refund.
This
just
adds
an
administrative
burden
that
shouldn't
even
be
there
I,
don't
know
why?
Because
it
doesn't
even
cover
everybody,
you're
kind
of
picking
winners
and
losers.
Here,
I
think
his
tax
policy
should
be
brought
as
possible,
catch
everybody
or
benefit
everybody.
F
B
A
A
Chairman
I
I
do
support
the
concept
of
this
and
and
I
understand
the
concept.
Putting
the
concept
into
statute
is
a
completely
different
matter,
and
that
and
and
I
look
at
this
almost
as
we're
working
two
ends
to
a
middle,
and
we
have
to
put
this
in
place
to
understand
what
it
does
and
how
much
money
is
involved
now
I
can
sport
to
get
it
out
of
the
the
committee,
but
I'm
not
ready
to
support
it
beyond
that
point,
unless
I
really
understand
it.
A
Frankly,
at
this
point
in
time,
I
couldn't
go
on
the
floor
of
the
house
and
present
this
bill.
I,
don't
think
I
understand
it
enough
and
would
do
justice
to
it.
So
I
just
wanted
to
to
put
that
out
there
for
the
committee,
like
I,
said:
I
can
support
getting
it
out
of
committee,
but
I
don't
know
that
I
can
I
can
support
it
beyond
that.
B
I
appreciate
that
and
I
think
it's
something
you
know.
Obviously
it
male
halfway
through
the
process
last
year
and
further
understanding,
yeah
and
having
never
served
in
the
house,
it
seems
like
the
Dynamics
are
a
little
bit
different
there.
Oh
yes,
but
so
yeah,
I
guess
from
the
Senate
perspective,
we
recognize
a
tremendous
amount
of
work.
The
Department
of
Revenue
has
put
into
this,
and
so
relying
on
the
subject
matter.
B
Experts,
people
who
do
this
for
a
living,
I
hope
that
carries
some
weight
in
this
discussion
and
once
we
like
I,
said
the
the
complications
of
this
bill
are
due
to
the
facts
that
the
fact
that
the
legislatures
made
a
decision
have
very
complex
revenue
streams
and
different
dips
and
tips.
B
I
just
hate
for
that
to
prevent
us
from
making
a
relatively
simple
policy
choice
to
mute,
the
impact
of
negative
federal
policy
decisions
for
our
state
and
local
governments,
as
well
as
provide
some
sense
of
stability
for
a
very
important
industry,
which
is
I,
think
crosshairs
of
some
very
powerful
people
right
now.
So
I
hope
that
we
can
get
past
our
own
limitations
in
state
government
and
the
legislature
in
particular,
and
do
something
that's
meaningful
for
our
the
people
of
this
state.
B
So
look
forward
to
working
with
the
co-chairman
and
really
going
over
in
depth
because
I
agree.
It
is
not
the
simplest
administrative
from
an
administrative
perspective,
but
I
think
we
should
keep
our
eyes
on
the
prize
eyes
on
the
goal
and
the
people
who
are
going
to
actually
be
doing
the
work
have
signed
off
on
it.
I
think
that's
that's
good
enough
in
my
mind,
but
then
again,
I'm
innocent.
So,
okay.
K
Any
further
discussion-
Mr
chairman
I'll,
just
tack
on
what
you
just
said,
I
think
the
concept
is
very,
very
simple:
it's
it's
truly
a
refund
of
the
difference
and
the
the
what
what
looks
confusing
is,
like
you
said,
tying
it
into
our
convoluted
tax
system
that
we
ourselves
not
us,
but
maybe
our
forefathers
did
to
us
so
I'd
hate
to
have
that
kill
this
idea,
because
the
idea
is
a
good
idea
and
we
have
to
be
open
for
business
in
Wyoming
and
with
more
than
half
almost
two-thirds
and
probably
more
than
two-thirds
of
our
minerals
being
owned
by
the
federal
government.
K
K
Wyoming
is
not
cheap
for
oil
and
gas
development
and
that
doesn't
even
talk
about
coal,
our
coal
guys.
So
anything
we
can
do
to
keep
the
lights
on
in
Wyoming.
Just
remember,
you
know
you,
the
people
that
are
celebrating
the
18.75
royalty
rate.
Zero
percent
of
18.75
is
zero
right.
If
you
don't
have
any
production,
if
nobody's
coming
to
town,
to
drill
on
these
Federal
leases
nobody's
buying
these
leases,
because
it's
too
expensive
to
operate
in
Wyoming
we're
getting
nothing
out
of
it.
F
Chairman
I'll
vote
to
get
it
out
of
committee,
but
I
will
not
vote
for
it
in
the
Senate.
If
we
don't
have
paragraph
f
and
g
in
there,
both
of
those
were
put
in
there
to
appease
the
people.
That
said
what?
If
they're,
the
companies
are
making
so
much
money
that
they
don't
need
this
break,
and
we
put
that
in
there
to
make
this
more
palatable
to
everyone
and
I
I
want
to
have
those
paragraphs
in
there.
Thank
you,
okay,.
B
Yes,
thank
you
Senator
and
that's
certainly,
the
adjustment
we
had
to
make
on
the
senate
floor
to
ensure
that
those
passage
but
I'm
sure
that'll
be
a
topic
of
discussion.
Whether
we
take
it
out
now
or
leave
it
in
now,
it'll
certainly
be
a
on
the
Forefront
of
people's
minds,
as
this
bill
goes
through
the
process.
So
thank
you
for
your
input.
Any
further
discussion,
question.
Okay,
all
those
okay,
I
guess
we'll
do
a
real
call.
Bro
go
ahead!
Mr
before.
E
Yep
Mr
chairman
vote
on
23
also
143
0.8
as
amended
Senator
Anderson
aye
Senator,
biteman,
aye,
aye,
representative
McGuire,
representative
winner.
D
B
B
So
we
are
slightly
ahead
of
schedule,
we'll
go
ahead
and
let's
go
and
take
a
break.
10
minutes
we'll
come
back
at
10
o'clock,
with
our
10
clock
topic
with
the
Bureau
of
Land
Management
good,
to
see
you
all
here,
so
we'll
get
started
right
at
10..
Thank
you.
Mr.
F
B
Okay,
very
yeah,
we
looks
like
we
do,
have
a
fairly
full
agenda.
I
certainly
understand
do
what
you
got
to
do
and
normally
I
say
you're
generally
inexcusable,
but
we'll
go
ahead
and
let
you
be
excused
well.
B
Right,
thank
you.
Look
for
hoping
to
see
you
this
afternoon.
Okay,
so
take
my
break
be
back
right
at
10
o'clock,
coach.
A
B
Okay,
I
suppose
we'll
go
ahead
and
get
going
again
we're
just
a
little
bit
after
10
o'clock.
So
next
topic
is
the
BLM,
so
we
do
have
our
federal
Partners
here
so
welcome
again
to
the
suck
Federal
natural
resource
management
committee.
You
can
thank
chairman
Burkhart
for
changing
the
venue
here
here
in
Cheyenne,
so
hopefully
that
made
a
slightly
less
treacherous
trip
down
so
good
to
see
you
as
always
and
we're
here
to
hear
any
updates.
G
M
All
right,
well,
chairman
boner
and
co-chairman
Burkhardt,
and
the
other
members
of
the
committee
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
come
and
talk
to
you
as
always,
and
look
forward
to
some
good
discussion
here
as
I
was
starting.
My
diesel
pickup
this
morning.
I
thought
about
that.
Article
I
read
about
diesel
refineries
and
yeah
causes
a
bit
of
worry
for
sure.
I
do
appreciate
the
the
change
in
venue
and
but
but
you
know,
you
guys
did
a
great
job
ordering
up
this
great
weather
that
we're
starting
the
winter
with.
M
So
thank
you
for
that
before
I
get
started,
I
want
to
introduce
a
few
people,
so
here
to
my
right
is
Dwayne
Spencer
and
Mr.
Spencer
is
our
Deputy
state
director
for
minerals
and
Realty
and
I?
Think
most
of
you
may
know
Dwayne,
but
he's
been
here
in
BLM
Wyoming
for
quite
a
while
and
is
definitely
my
source
of
knowledge
for
a
lot
of
the
topics.
We're
going
to
cover
I
do
want
to
introduce
two
other
people
that
are
out
in
the
audience
real,
quick,
Christina
Kirby.
M
M
Thank
you
for
that.
All
right,
well,
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
oil
and
gas
Leasing,
and
you
know
that
was
the
the
topic
this
morning
really
and
just
a
a
few
updates
from
BLM
here.
But
you
know
this
past
June
we
held
an
oil
and
gas
lease
sale.
We
offered
122
Parcels
is
about
120
000
Acres
81
Parcels
were
sold
for
about
13
million
dollars
and,
as
you
know,
the
state
gets
about
48
of
the
of
those
funds
on
October
the
6th.
M
We
opened
up
a
30-day
public
comment
period
for
our
next
Oil
and
Gas
lease
sale,
which
we're
looking
at
June
of
2023,
takes
us
about
nine
months
to
prepare
an
oil
and
gas
lease
sale,
we're
considering
about
208
Parcels
right
now
and
here
in
Wyoming,
and
one
parcel
in
Nebraska
about
255
000
Acres
and
when
we're
expecting
to
offer
that
in
June,
like
I,
said
so
looking
forward
to
getting
that
that
work
done
a
little
bit
about
apds.
M
This
past
September,
we
approved
about
38
applications
for
permit
to
drill,
and
we
approved
another
about
so
38
in
September,
about
28
in
in
October,
so
they're
not
coming
in
fast
or
Furious.
But
there
are
about
2
300,
Federal
apds
that
have
been
approved
and
are
available
for
drilling
here
in
Wyoming.
M
Since
May.
You
know
we've
been
getting
a
lot
of
requests
for
extensions
from
different
companies
and
we
have
actually
approved
about
800
APD
extensions
since
over
the
summer
and
here
into
the
fall
and
I
think
you
all
are,
are
aware:
a
real
shortage
in
supplies
and
a
real
shortage
in
employees
and
and
tough
to
get
drill
rigs
staffed
and
and
get
them
moving.
And
that's
what
most
of
the
companies
are
telling
us,
but
just
wanted
to
make
you
aware
of
that
as
well.
M
I
know,
you've
been
talking
some
about
the
the
new
inflation
reduction
act
and
just
want
to
touch
on
a
couple
of
points
there
that
have
direct
impact
to
what
we
do
and
obviously
impact
on
the
state
of
Wyoming
as
well.
M
There
is
a
it
was
an
increase
in
in
leasing
minimum
bids
from
two
dollars
per
acre
to
ten
dollars
per
acre.
There's
an
increase
in
gas
royalty
rates
which
you
guys
are
are
well
aware
of
from
12.5
percent
to
16.67
percent
and
just
wanted
to
to
be
sure.
You
understood,
I
think
that
the
question
came
up
earlier,
that
that
increase
rate
does
not
apply
to
current
leases.
Only
to
to
new
leases
and
I
believe
Dwayne,
we
have
about
81
new
leases
right
now.
M
The
inflation
reduction
act
also
increased
the
rental
rates
from
three
dollars,
an
acre
for
the
first
two
years
up
to
five
dollars
per
acre
for
years,
three,
through
eight
and
fifteen
dollars,
an
acre
in
years
nine
and
ten
prior
to
the
inflation
reduction
act.
Rental
rates
were
a
dollar
fifty
per
acre
for
the
first
five
years
and
two
dollars
an
acre
thereafter,
so
compared
to
those
rates,
a
pretty
significant
increase,
but
it
has
been
a
number
of
years
many
years
since
the
the
rate
has
changed.
M
The
other
thing
that
the
inflation
reduction
act
did
was
it
eliminated,
non-competitive
Leasing,
but
it
authorized
additional
rounds
of
competitive
leasing
of
available
parcels,
and
so
once
a
lease
sale
is
over,
a
company
cannot
come
in
and
non-competitively
purchase
those
leases,
but
we
can
put
those
leases
up
for
bid
at
a
later
date.
So
that's
kind
of
the
change
there,
another
new
new.
We
got
that
question.
If
that's
okay
with
you,
yes,.
K
Sir,
absolutely
I
figure
I'd
ask
it
now
before
you
get
too
far
gone,
can
I
ask
why
the
decision
was
made
to
eliminate
non-competitive
leasing,
what
the
rationale
was.
M
You
know
I
wish
I
could
give
you
an
answer
to
that.
I
honestly,
don't
know
and
I
don't
know
if
Dwayne,
if
you
have
anything,
you
can
provide
on
that
yeah
I
can't
say
any
more
than
that.
Senator
I
apologize
for
that.
Obviously,
here
at
the
state
level
with
you
know
that
we
weren't
that
we
weren't
privy
to
that
discussion.
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that
yeah.
B
M
The
inflation
reduction
act
also
requires
a
fee
for
expression
of
interest
for
oil
and
gas
leasing
of
five
dollars
per
acre.
Previously
there
was
no
charge
and
the
secretary
can't
adjust
that
rate
every
four
years.
M
So
you
know
we're
not
far
enough
into
that
to
know
if,
if
it's
going
to
have
an
impact
on
the
number
of
leases
or
not
so
so
time
will
tell
on
that
so
I'm
going
to
stop
there
with
oil
and
gas
Leasing
and
just
see
if
there
are
any
questions
to
that
point
and
then
I'll
continue
on
to
renewable
energy.
Okay,.
B
Just
real
quick,
the
statutory
increase
oil
and
gas
royalty
rates
went
to
16
and
two-thirds,
but
that
doesn't
prevent
the
right
for
being
higher.
Is
that
correct?
In
fact,
the
thing
called
the
new
leases
were
at
18
and
a
half.
Is
that
correct?
So
as
long
make
sure
I
understood
that
correctly
and
it's
entirely
possible
that
it
remains
at
18
and
a
half
percent
for
the
foreseeable
future?
B
O
Chairman
boner
Dwayne,
Spencer
Deputy
state
director,
BLM
Wyoming,
the
18.75
royalty
rate
was
a
decision
at
the
secretarial
level
based
upon
the
the
leasing
plan
that
they
put
together.
I,
don't
believe,
there's
any
plan
now
that
it's
the
legislative
increase
is
16.67
percent
is
in
place
to
use
the
18.75
anymore,
and
the
scoping
notice
that
went
out
for
the
sale
was
at
the
16.67
percent.
K
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
regarding
the
the
fee
for
expressions
of
interest
in
oil
and
gas
leasing
of
five
dollars.
An
acre
is
that
a
refundable
fee
if
the
lease
sale
doesn't
happen
or
are
they
just
out
the
five
dollars
an
acre
just
for
asking
permission
to
I,
don't
know
at
least
I.
M
Guess
Senator
Brian
man,
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
believe
it
is
refundable,
but
is
it
yeah
as
far
as
I
know,
it
is
not
a
refundable
fee.
M
Go
ahead
and
proceed:
I'll
move
I'll,
move
on
to
some
renewable
energy
projects
and
kind
of
what's
going
on
here
in
Wyoming
for
Blum.
M
I,
first
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
inflation,
reduction,
act
and
and
kind
of
the
connection
that
was
made
with
oil
and
gas
leasing
as
well
So
within
in
order
for
us.
So
you
know
we.
We
approve
renewable
energy
projects
through
our
right-of-way
program
and
through
the
inflation
reduction
act,
the
requirement
to
issue
a
right-of-way
can
only
be
done
within
120
days
of
a
oil
and
gas
lease
sale
so
120
days
prior
or
previous
to
an
oil
and
gas
lease
sale.
M
The
other
criteria
for
issuing
a
right-of-way
is
that,
within
a
one-year
period
preceding
the
date
or
issuance
of
a
lease,
we
either
have
to
have
at
least
2
million
Acres
or
50
percent
of
the
acreage
of
Express
expressions
of
Interest
and
keep
in
mind.
That's
not
specific
to
Wyoming
that's
nationally,
so
those
numbers
are
based
on
National.
You
know
a
National
Lease
sale
of
two
million
Acres
or
50
percent
of
that
lease
sales
expressions
of
Interest.
A
Mr
Archuleta
and
I
I
don't
want
to
interrupt
your
presentation
too
much,
but
I
do
have
a
question
on
on
solar
because
I've
gotten
a
number
of
questions
concerns
complaints
from
constituents
over
some
of
the
Solar
projects
here
in
Wyoming,
the
amount
of
land
that
they
pretty
much
take
out
of
multiple
use,
specifically
one
I've
heard-
is
the
one
over
by
Genesis
Alkali
east
of
Green
River
that
there
was
some
concern
that
land
was
sterilized
in
bln
land
taken
out
of
the
multiple
use
consideration.
M
Sure,
Senator
or
representative
Burkhart,
so
we
here
in
in
Wyoming,
we
do
not
have
a
lot
of
applications
for
solar
and
I.
Believe
we've
only
approved
one
solar
project,
but
you
know
some
of
the
the
technology
surrounding
those
solar
developments.
M
Initially
it
was,
they
scraped
the
lamb
and
put
put
up
the
solar
panels,
and
generally
it
was
about
a
30-year
life
for
a
solar
project.
So
you're
you're
talking
about
a
one
one
type
of
use
over
30
years
at
a
minimum.
You
know
some
of
that's
changed
and
and
there's
some
vegetation
allowed
to
grow
now
and
a
little
bit
of
grazing
may
take
place,
but
it
you're
exactly
right.
It
does
take
it
out
of
production.
M
We,
like
I,
said
we
only
have
the
one
that
we've
approved
here
in
Wyoming
and
we're
not
seeing
a
lot
of
applications
for
solar,
the
national
renewable
energy
lab
years
ago.
You
know,
did
a
study
looking
at
ideal
places
for
for
solar
energy
development
and
Wyoming
is
up
there.
We
just
haven't
received
the
interest
here.
A
Okay,
not
a
follow-up
Mr
chairman,
not
not
that
I
could
see
frankly
much
other
use
for
that
little
parcel
of
land
over
there,
but
again
I
need
to
be
able
to
to
answer
the
questions
I
get
from
constituents
and
and
those
people.
So
thank
you
sure.
B
K
A
B
A
question
regarding
the
requiring
for
the
right,
so
is
that
only
for
transmission
lines,
or
is
it
for
an
entire
wind
or
solar
projects?
What's
the
limitation
there
is
it?
Is
it
why
I
say
it
when
I
see
that's,
why
I
think
the
only
transmission,
but
is
it
also
for
the
wind
turbines
and
the
solar
panels
themselves?
It.
M
Is
so
we're
we're
issuing
a
right-of-way
that
allows
a
company
to
use
a
piece
of
land
similar
to
if
you
as
a
landowner
needed?
Well,
like
you
mentioned
a
road,
if
you
needed
access
to
your
property,
we
would
issue
you
a
right
away
across
BLM
to
access
your
property,
and
it
gives
you
certain
rights
to
to
use
that
piece
of
property
similar
to
a
renewable
energy
project,
whether
it
be
solar
or
wind.
M
Next,
just
a
couple
of
more
comments
here
and
then
definitely
would
like
to
hear
hear
any
questions
you
have
in
July
I
believe
your
group
submitted
a
list,
a
list
of
questions
to
to
us
about
solar
rights
of
ways,
and
we
provided
some
responses
and-
and
hopefully
you
have
that
in
hand,
but
I
wanted
to
hit
on
a
few
of
the
highlights
from
that
response
there.
M
So,
like
we've
been
talking
about,
you
know
we
we
listed.
We
do
issue
rights
of
ways
for
those
renewable
energy
projects
and
the
lists
of
authorized
winds
and
solar
rights
of
ways
are
available
on
our
website.
So
if
you're
ever
wondering
what's
be
all
I'm
up
to
in
the
in
the
area
of
renewable
energy,
you
can
definitely
see
on
our
on
our
website
projects
that
are
in
process.
M
It
wasn't
so
much
in
Wyoming
as
it
was
in
other
states,
but
some
of
the
values
that
are
being
used
that
were
being
used
and
it
comes
out
of
the
Agricultural
research
service,
but
some
of
the
values
that
were
being
used
because
of
the
counties
they
were
in
and
a
lot
of
this
came
out
of
out
of
Southern
California.
M
M
Currently
here
in
Wyoming,
our
per
acre
rental
rate
is
3.36
13.36
an
acre
and
for
wind,
our
per
acre
rental
rates
are
a
dollar
34
an
acre.
So
so
we
are
in
the
process
of
doing
NEPA
on
three
different
wind
energy
projects.
Here
in
Wyoming,
the
first
one
is
the
two
rivers
project,
a
fairly
large
project,
we're
looking
at
issuing
that
environmental
assessment
for
public
comment
next
week,
and
that
is
a
joint
document
with
us
and
the
U.S
fish
and
wildlife
service
with
some
of
those
wind
energy
projects.
M
There
is
a
lot
of
concern
with
large
Raptors
golden
bald
and
Eagles,
and-
and
you
are
are
probably
aware
in
the
Shirley
Basin-
that's
a
big
migration,
Corridor
and
so
trying
to
be
really
sensitive
and
understand.
You
know
the
impact
that
wind
projects
might
have
on
some
of
those
Raptors
two
others
are
the
lucky
star
project
and
the
Maestro
project,
all
generally
in
the
same
area
of
the
Shirley
basin.
M
And
then
we're
also
working
on
three
wind
test
projects
and
the
testing
projects
are,
you
know
a
company
will
come
in
wants
to
know
if
the
wind
in
a
particular
area
area
would
support
their
proposed
wind
project.
So
we
have
three
win
projects
going
on
and
three
that
are
have
moved
on
into
the
NEPA
process.
M
So
I'm
going
to
close
right
there
with
with
comments
that
I
have
and
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
might
have.
M
A
M
You
very
much
and
co-chairman
Burkhardt
just
want
to
add
to
that.
You
know
the
there
is
a
lot
of
wind
development
in
that
area.
Already.
Yes,
a
lot
of
it
on
private
property
is,
as
I'm
sure,
you're
well
aware,
so
we're
trying
to
get
an
understand
on
what
the
big
picture
looks
like
as
we
move
forward
with
with
the
BLM
projects.
B
Thank
you
for
the
discussion
too
many,
so
I
have
a
few
questions.
First
of
all,
going
back
to
that
relationship
with
the
inflation
reduction
act
between
issuing
lease
sales,
and
you
know
issuing
rights
way
for
one
in
Solar,
Development
I.
Just
how
often
would
you
say
on
average
you
have
to
issue
a
round
player
for
when
and
Solar
Development
over
the
past
several
years.
How
often
does
that
occur?
Foreign.
M
I,
don't
know
if
I
have
a
specific
answer
to
that,
but
because
it
it
takes
up,
you
know,
similar
to
any
large
project,
takes
multiple
years
to
develop
a
project
so
that
it
takes
a
multiple
years
to
get
to
the
point
where
actually
where
we
are
actually
prepared
to
issue
a
right-of-way.
Just
take
the
two
rivers
wind
project,
for
example,
that
EA
will
come
out
here.
M
It's
still
got
you
know
some
public
review
and
other
parts
to
that
process,
and
normally
we'd
probably
be
looking
at
issuing
that
right
away
next
summer
next
spring
or
summer.
So
now
what
we'll
have
to
do
is
look
at.
You
know
the
the
criteria
from
the
inflation
reduction
act
and
probably
delay
the
issue
and
so
that
right
away
closer
to
an
oil
and
gas
lease
sale.
M
B
O
Mr
chairman,
our
plan
is
to
return
to
quarterly
lease
sales,
so
the
September
sale
will
kick
off
in
the
next
couple
months.
We've
got
our
schedule
set
out
for
the
next
three
for
the
next
three
sales
there.
So
as
you
as
we've
talked
about
before
at
any
point
in
time,
you
have
the
three
overlapping
sale,
depending
where
you're
at
in
the
process,
from
having
one
and
issuing
leases
to
being
in
the
middle
of
the
review
process
to
starting
the
next
quarter.
So
that's
the
schedule
we've
got
together.
Thank.
N
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and
I'm,
just
and
maybe
members
of
the
committee
can
help
me
I'm,
trying
to
rectify
the
numbers
that
we
had
in
a
memorandum
that
was
prepared
for
us
very
well
prepared
for
us
with
regard
to
the
per
acre
row
fees
versus
what
we
just
heard,
which
seemed
extraordinarily
low.
The
13.36
in
the
dollar
34
per
acre
rental
is
there:
is
there
something
else
that
I'm
missing
here?
Is
there
another
fee,
that's
associated
with
these
these
projects
that
I
am
missing?
Thank
you,
Mr,
chairman
and.
B
That
was
going
to
be
my
next
question.
You
mentioned
the
rental
just
for
you
know,
taking
up
space
on
the
land
that
is
there
additional
Revenue
based
off
the
actual
wind
generation
that
the
revenue
generated
from
those
turbine
spending
and
maybe
I'm
projecting
you
know
full
disclosure.
We
have
one
Farm
on
our
Ranch,
so
I'm
just
projecting
some
of
the
elements
that
I've
assume
to
vaguely
remember
having
that
discussion
in
the
private
side
of
things.
So
what
other
fees
does
the
blind
have
if
any?
Besides,
just
the
parade
or
acre
rental.
M
I'm
Mr,
co-chairman
and
representative
McGuire
apologize
if
that
was
confusing
in
the
document,
we'll
see
if
we
can
clarify
it
for
you
here,
there
are
multiple
fees,
not
just
the
right-of-way
fee,
associated
with
a
a
project
development.
So
you
have
the
process
and
processing
and
monitoring
fees
up
front.
You
have
rental
fees,
as
we
just
talked
about
for
the
rights
of
ways.
M
Excuse
me,
and
there
is
also
a
per
eight
or
per
megawatt
rate
fee
associated
with
those
projects
as
well.
So
bigger
project
pays
more
if
they're
well,
if
they're,
generating
higher
megawatts
so
I,
representative,
McGuire
I,
don't
know
if
there
are
some
specific
differences
that
you
saw
there
that
you
want
to
ask
about.
But
you
know
in
my
notes:
I
just
talked
about
I
just
kind
of
lump
things
in
the
memo
that
we
sent
to
you
all.
It
breaks
them
down
by
fee
this
one.
K
Thank
you,
Mr,
chairman
and
kind
of
adding
on
to
that
discussion
about
other
fees.
What's
the
cost,
does
the
BLM
charge
a
per
animal
kill
fees
for
bald
eagles
and
other
Hawks
and
different
birds
that
get
killed
by
these
wind
turbines?
Is
there
a
does
that
tack
on
to
additional
fees?
Are
they
allowed
to
take
so
many
Eagles
or
Birds
a
year?
Can
you
walk
us
through
how
that
how
the
public
is
compensated
for
the
loss
of
birds.
M
Thank
you,
Senator
biteman,
you
know
the
when
we're
talking
about
bald
and
golden
eagles
and
a
lot
of
the
other
large
Raptors.
It's
really
part
of
that's
sufficient
Wildlife
service
responsibility,
and
so,
while
we
work
very
closely
with
them,
they
will
develop
a
take
permit
for
the
the
project
proponent.
We
don't
get
real
directly
involved
in
those
what
goes
into
the
take
permit.
We
take
what
the
fish
and
wildlife
service
produces,
and
we
use
that
in
our
analysis,
so
I
don't
know
that
I
can
directly
answer
your
question
beyond
that
foreign.
B
Negotiates
and
so
maybe
talk
a
little
about
the
process
and
then
maybe
tell
us
what
what
what
the
average
fee
is.
Average
rate
is
for
per
megawatt.
If
you
can
divulge
that.
O
It's
a
general
fee,
that's
consistent
for
everybody
and
it's
upon
your
installed
megawatts.
It's
not
the
amount
generated
it
is
affixed,
it
is
a
fixed
fee
and
I.
Don't
have
the
dollar
values
here
with
me.
Perhaps
Andrew
has
them
on
the
chart
there,
but
it
is
affixed
on
the
installation
not
a
generating
fee
based
upon
how
much
you
produce.
M
D
D
E
M
M
You
know
year,
one
they
paid
forty
thousand
dollars
year;
two,
it
was
eighty
thousand
and
it
basically
doubled
up
to
year.
Four,
there.
B
Right,
I
guess
that
kind
of
gives
us
a
good
estimate
as
to
what
the
overall
payment
as
well
I'm.
You
know
still
thinking
about
you
know
once
again
the
the
way
that
worked
in
the
private
sector
and
how
you
know
what
it
does
come
down
to.
If
you
know
a
dollar
per
megawatt
figure
and
if
it's
just
staying
plate
capacity,
then
you
have
to
also
take
the
capacity
Factor
right
and
adjust
it.
B
That
way
so
I
understand,
if
you
don't
have
that
right
now,
but
that
might
be
an
interesting
either
either
either
you
could
provide
that
a
standard
figure
or
we
could
maybe
just
say
how
much
the
stall
capacity
is
and
I'll
be
home
Landing
of
those
when
projects
we
can
figure
it
out
from
there.
You
know,
but
yeah,
that's
just
something
I'm
interested
in,
so
we
can
kind
of
get
a
feel
for
you
know
the
differences
between
what
you
can
expect.
B
You
know
on
private
land
versus
State
versus
Federal
for
as
far
as
payments
for
all
these
different
types
of
energy
projects,
which
are
going
to
become
more
and
more
common
in
our
state.
So
absolutely
appreciate
your
testimony.
So
far,
but
yeah
I
think
we'll
drill
down
a
little
bit
on
some
of
those
figures
and
and
that'll
be
helpful
for
me
at
least
so
I'm.
M
N
Thank
you
and,
and
so
when
you
said
our
memo
response,
I'm
talking
about
the
memo,
that's
the
one
that
we
have
here.
Okay,
all.
N
B
K
You
Mr
chairman
one
more
question
regarding
solar
and
wind
on
federal
lands:
the
are
the
NEPA
requirements
and
all
the
environmental
Hoops
companies
have
to
jump
through.
Are
they
the
same
as
oil
and
gas
or
are
they
less
stringent?
K
M
I'll
ask
Dwayne
to
jump
in
here
because
he's
obviously
the
experienced
one
with
oil
and
gas,
but
really
the
NEPA
process
is
the
same
and
we
are
required
to
take
into
account
all
of
those
different
issues.
I
would
say:
oil
and
gas
is
actually
ahead
of
the
game
because
we
over
the
years
have
been
able
to
develop
some
things
that
just
make
it
more
efficient
to
do.
M
Nepa
on
oil
and
gas
projects,
where
we
know
I
mean
we
know
oil
and
gas,
and
we
know
what
those
potential
impacts
are
and
what
what
is
related
to
developing
or
developing
an
oil
and
gas
project.
So
we
have
anticipated
some
of
those
things.
You
know
wind
and
solar,
while
not
entirely
new.
It
is
new
on
the
scale
that
we're
seeing
that
come
in,
and
so
yes
we're
still
looking
at
those
potential
impacts.
M
O
Mr,
chairman
Senator
biteman
they're,
really,
the
only
big
the
only
difference
will
be
dealing
with
the
eagle
take.
That's
got
a
separate
process
for
renewable
projects
and
wind
energy
versus
our
other
stuff.
Where
you
know,
if
you
get
into
the
take
provision
you
avoid
mitigate
and
we
move
out
of
that.
So
we
don't
have
that
with
the
wind
turbines.
It's
a
different.
It's
a
different
process
that
we
go
through
on
the
take.
That's
the
only
difference.
O
Look
at
the
boss
here,
who
knows
it
better,
so
Mr,
chairman
Senator
biteman
there
there
have
been
projects
approved
at
the
big
environmental
impact
statement
level
that
disclosed
that
that
level
of
take
can
take
measures
to
reduce
them
like,
for
example,
a
lot
of
the
Big
Oil
and
Gas
projects
that
had
that
a
lot
of
electrification
associated
with
them
when
the
power
line,
the
installation
of
perch,
deterrent
and
other
electric
electrocution
there,
there
was
a
level
of
take
identified
with
with
some
of
those
not
not
project
direct,
take
like
a
wind
turbine
versus
an
oil
and
gas.
O
O
O
We're
we're
not
quite
there
yet
enough
to
get
into
kind
of
that
competitive
mode
that
state
director
Archuleta
had
in
his
previous
job.
He
dealt
with
that
all
the
time.
You
could
have
a
little
better
idea
where
you
were
going
to
have
and
move
around,
but
up
here
we're
not
quite
there.
Yet
the
companies
work
together
to
avoid
overlapping
with
each
other
and
creating
situations
that
have
to
be
addressed
through
a
competitive
process
so
other
than
the
take.
The
take
is
really
the
biggest
thing
dealing
with
on
on
wind.
M
I'll
just
add
real
quickly
to
that
Senator
biteman,
the
you
know
when
you're
dealing
with
with
a
lot
of
it,
has
to
do
with
risk.
And
you
know
the
risk
associated
with
two
bald
and
gold
and
Eagles
associated
with
a
wind
project
is
a
lot
higher
than
that
associated
with
an
oil
and
gas
project,
the
risk
to
other
migratory
Birds,
probably
maybe
equal,
but
probably
a
little
higher
with
oil
and
gas,
at
least
when
we
were
dealing
with
open
pits
and
those
kinds
of
things
than
it
was
for
wind
and
solar.
N
N
N
I
would
say,
the
perception
is
that
the
federal
land
is
lowering
the
market
in
in
bringing
that
market
down.
So
I'm
just
curious.
Don't
need
to
comment.
If
that's
I'm
curious,
is
there
any
kind
of
a
mechanism
that's
in
place
or
you
anticipate
will
be
put
in
place
to
help,
try
and
normalize
so
that
everybody's
dealing
with
kind
of
on
a
fair
playing
field
and
the
people,
the
private
landowners,
won't
feel
that
maybe
a
development
is
bypassing
them
for
some
other
place,
particularly
to
go
on
Federal
Land.
Thank
you.
Mr.
M
Representative
McGuire
I'll
take
an
initial
stab
at
it
and
then
maybe
Dwayne
wants
to
jump
in
here.
So
it
I've
not
heard
that
actually
and
and
it's
curious
to
me,
because
we
usually
get
a
you
know
a
lot
of
complaints
that
is
more
expensive
to
develop
on
Federal
Land
for
whatever
type
of
project
because
of
the
NEPA
that
we
require.
M
But
you
know
if
our
per
mega
mega
wat
fee
is
much
lower
than
say
what
the
something
The
Profit
that
that's
occurring
on
on
private
land
I
could
see
that
being
an
issue,
but
honestly
I've.
Never
that's
never
been
brought
up
to
me.
We
are
looking
at
our
our
renewable
regulations
and
rules.
Just
you
know,
are
they
adequate?
Are
they
not?
Should
we
be
adjusting
them?
So
I
will
definitely
bring
that
question
up
because
that's
a
new
one.
O
O
Representative
Maguire,
as
state
director
Archuleta
mentioned,
there
was
a
recent
effort
to
review
the
rental
rates
on
on
federal
lands
and
in
all
the
feedback
we
got
from.
All
the
other
states
really
was
no
no
comments
submitted
really
about
the
rental
rates
for
Wyoming,
and
some
of
the
states
with
with
not
the
level
of
development
like
California
had
a
lot
of
issues
with
how
they
were
valuing
the
rentals
and
all
of
that
that
had
to
be
adjusted.
I
just
didn't
hear
that
we
had
any
comments
submitted
on
on
that,
particularly
either.
O
That
means
the
rate
works
for
folks
there,
which
the
developers
it
might
work
for
they
were
predominantly
the
ones
that
were
commenting
and
so
up
as
a
state
director
Archuleta
mentioned
there
we
can.
We
can
bring
that
up
with
our.
We
have
a
coordinating
group
on
renewable
energy.
We
bring
those
issues
up
if
anybody
else
is
hearing
that
from
the
private
owner
perspective
versus
what
we
were
hearing
was.
The
Federal
lands
were
too
expensive
in
a
number
of
the
places
where
the
projects
were
ongoing.
B
There
you
go
oh
representative
winner,
maybe
and.
P
Yes,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
director,
I
I'm.
P
It's
not
I'm,
just
not
understanding
this
megawatt
fee.
It's
my
understanding
that
you
folks
said
it's
it's
a
fee
that
is
established.
It's
not
based
on
anything
like
what
they're
producing
or
whatever
just
based
on
some
factor
that
I
don't
understand.
So
could
you
explain
a
little
bit
about
where
these
megawatt
fees
come
from
and
if
they
are
based
on
whether
they're
producing
or
will
produce
or
just
how
that
works.
O
O
It
is
a
national
fee
that
was
set
that
was
going
to
be
charged
to
every
installed
project
on
the
installed
and
built
amount,
not
the
generating,
and
when
that
was
set
up,
it
was
kind
of
the
the
same
issues
came
up
there
as
they
looked
at
comments,
because
there
was
no
reporting
mechanism
set
up
to
have
a
report
come
in
every
month
to
say:
I
generated
this
many
megawatt
hours,
here's
what
I
have
there's
not
a
there
is
not
a
royalty
system
set
up
for
right-of-ways
is
really
what
it
came
down
to
and
based
upon
all
the
comment
that
it
came
in
that
you
should
do
it
on
the
installed
capacity,
not
set
up
a
reporting
mechanism
kind
of
like
a
royalty
rate
where
it
varies
every
month
that
that
idea
was
not
adopted.
O
M
Representative
winner
I'll
just
jump
here,
real
quick,
so
kind
of
the
idea
was,
you
know
we,
oil
and
gas
coal,
it's
something
we
can
put
our
hands
on
something
that
the
federal
government
actually
owns.
Wind,
solar,
not
the
same
thing,
but
the
idea
was:
how
do
we
get
a
the
American
public
compensated
for
the
use
of
those
materials
on
public
land?
So
it
you
know,
like
Mr
Spencer
said
there
it's
similar
to
the
the
royalty
rate
with
oil
and
gas.
That's
how
I
I
view
it
so.
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
just
to
to
maybe
help
with
that
discussion
and
I'm.
Looking
at
this
report,
we
have
so
that
fee
is
an
annual
fee
per
megawatt.
So
if
you
have
a
based
on
what
I
have
here,
if
you
have
a
one
megawatt
turbine,
they
pay
an
annual
fee
of
two
thousand
dollars,
am
I,
correct,
I,
just
wanna,
and
then
they
pay
that
every
year,
rather
than
a
generation
fee,
it's
just
on
the
unnamed
plate
capacity.
A
Okay,
so
Mr
chairman,
if,
if
we've
kind
of
moved
off
of
of
wind
and
solar
a
little
bit,
I
have
a
few
other
questions.
We
have
the
experts
here,
You,
probably
weren't,
prepared
for
these.
B
Quite
sure,
okay
doesn't
okay,
but
yeah.
No!
Here's!
You
know
as
committee.
If
you
have
questions
about
one
solar
down,
it's
time
to
ask
yeah.
K
I
have
one
last
question
on
when
solar
look
go
into
I
think
it's
page
seven
of
the
memo
where
we
talk
about
mitigation
and
reclamation.
If
you
could
elaborate
on
how
how
we
go
about
reclaiming
some
of
these
wind
and
winds,
particular
windmill
sites,
there's
a
lot
of
concrete
involved.
K
What
are
we
doing
with
the
with
the
turban
blades?
How
are
we
dispose?
I
mean
all
this
stuff
and
getting
the
ground
back
to
where
it
was?
Is
it
similar
to
the
AML
funds,
where
the
coal
mines
paid
into
this
pot
of
money
and
then
that
money
gets
used
to
reclaim
it
and
we
doing
bonding?
And
how
much
can
you
kind
of
walk
us
through
more
detail?
How
the
mitigation
looks
for
for
wind
projects,
foreign.
O
Senator
biteman
there
is
a
Reclamation
on
posted
for
every
project
and
that
is
based
upon
there's
a
Reclamation
cost
estimate
prepared
to
remove
the
turbines
get
rid
of
the
roads.
The
the
cement
base
has
a
mix
depending
on
what
they
proposed
in
their
initial
proposal.
Sometimes
it's
left
in
place.
Sometimes
it's
totally
removed
and-
and
that
depends
as
far
as
where
they
haul
the
material
it
has
to
go
to
an
approved
facility.
O
O
So
far,
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
projects,
but
we've
we've
not
had
to
collect
any
any
Reclamation
Bonds
on
it,
and
one
thing
that
that
is
slightly
different
for
some
of
the
renewable
and
it
specifically
relates
to
the
transmission
lines
that,
if
you
are
a
public
utility,
that's
regulated
by
the
state
of
Wyoming
board
is
a
anyway.
If
you're
regulated
that
way,
we
do
not
require
the
Reclamation
Bond,
because
that's
built
into
the
process
that
the
state
already
requires
that
you
build
in
mitigation.
O
So
there's
no
there's
no
double
bonding
on
that
aspect
of
it
with
the
transmission
line
tie-ins
and
everything
like
it,
but
there's
a
bond
posted.
They
are
responsible
for
completing
it
and
so
far,
so
good,
no
bond
collections
for
nobody
for
somebody
not
living
up
to
their
obligations
on
reclamation.
K
B
O
B
Any
further
questions-
committee,
okay
and
I-
have
one
before
we
move
on.
We
just
talked
about
the
percent
that
the
state
gets
for.
You
know
having
oil
and
gas
development
on
our
land
through
fmrs.
Is
there
any
similar
reimbursement
to
the
state
for
wind
or
Solar
Development
on
federal
land
in
Wyoming.
M
Chairman
boner
at
this
point
in
time
there
is,
there
is
nothing
similar
and
you
know,
and
I
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussions
over
the
years
in
various
States
about
that
concern
federally
there.
Just
nothing
has
come
about.
There
is
no
new
legislation
that
would
allow
us
to
to
collect
a
fee
like
that
or
to
disperse
a
fee
like
that.
M
Some
states
have
talked
about
legislation
but
I'm,
not
aware
of
any
states
that
have
that
in
place,
not
that
they
don't
exist,
I'm,
just
not
aware
of
it.
When
I
was
in
Southern
California.
That
was
a
big
big
issue
because
of
the
large
number
of
of
renewable
energy
projects,
but
yet
they're
had
they
had
not
developed
any
state
specific
legislation
to
that
effect.
B
Yeah,
it
seems
like
that
would
be
have
to
be
something
that
comes
from
the
federal
government.
Not
unless
you
want
to
send
a
resolution
or
something
you
know
making
them
aware
of
the
fact
that
I'm
sure
that
they're
aware
so
just
I
guess
that's
my
final
thought.
I
guess
for
the
committee
and
and
we
can
send
a
letter
we'll
see
so
okay
go
ahead
and
represent
Burkhart.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Mr,
chairman
and
I
know
you
weren't
prepared
to
answer
these
questions,
but
I
think
it's
useful
information,
so
I
know
of
three
potential
pumped
Hydro
projects
in
Wyoming
and
I
would
imagine
one
or
two
of
those
at
least
will
impact
federal
land
BLM
land
and
that
do
you
have
rules
in
place
for
those
or
would
they
be
handled
like
any
other
college
industrial
project
on
the
land.
M
So
coach,
Herman,
boner
and
representative
Burkhart,
we
don't
have
specific
rules
for
pump
projects
per
se
generally,
they
would
fall
under
existing
regulations
and
generally
rights
of
ways,
because
it's
kind
of
the
same
idea.
You
know
with
a
pump
storage
project.
We
would
be
issuing
it
right
away
for
the
use
of
a
specific
area
or
piece
of
land,
and
so
the
NEPA
would
follow
a
similar
process
where
we
would
be
looking
at
the
different
environmental
impacts
associated
with
the
components
to
that
project.
M
A
Okay,
thank
you
so,
and
I've
got
three
questions
here.
The
the
third
one
you'll
enjoy
I
think
with,
as
as
you
know,
Wyoming
is
a
state
we're
authorized
to
to
give
class
six
permits
well
permits
for
injection
of
CO2
sequestration.
A
So
there
has
been
a
lot
of
discussion,
especially
because
a
lot
of
this
will
go
into
to
BLM
land
I
mean,
and
the
state
is
has
held
for
years,
that
the
surface
owner
owns
the
poor
space
and
that
so
has
I.
Think
it's
been
discussed,
but
have
you
kind
of
come
to
any
sort
of
decision
on
on
what
the
BLM
will
want
in
fee
for
that
sequestration?
I
I.
Ask
that
because
the
state's
considering
the
same
thing,
so
we
don't
want
to
get
Crossways
and
everybody
have
different
amounts
of
money.
M
M
Those
are
also
always
done
under
ferc.
The
federal
Energy,
Regulatory,
Commission
and
and
ferc
has
a
different
well,
they
have
their
own
NEPA
process
and
we
generally
fall
under
their
NEPA
process
so
that
you
know
the
while
we
cover
those
things
that
end
up
being
on
BLM
land
under
our
rights
of
ways
and
all
we
are
following
the
Fert
process.
M
So
just
wanted
to
add
that
in-
and
you
know
this
this
question
about
carbon
sequestration,
it's
been
fascinating
to
think
about,
and
you
know
you
kind
of
wish
you
could
stick
your
head
underground
and
look
around,
but
that
you
know
that
doesn't
happen,
but
I'm
going
to
actually
turn
it
over
to
Dwayne,
because
he's
really
been
been
on
this
and
and
working
with
some
of
the
proponents
out
there
for
carbon
projects,
Mr
Spencer.
D
O
Sorry
Mr,
chairman
representative
Burkhart,
so
we
do
have
some
ongoing
CO2
sequestration
projects
and
I.
Think
one
one
of
the
groundworks
at
the
state
laid
which
has
been
really
working
for
BLM
is
that
the
PO
that
the
service
owner
owns
the
poor
space
we
we
are
using
that
adoption
and
while
there
may
be
a
few
anomalies
out
there
with
some
of
the
Acquisitions
over
the
years
on
how
surfaces
acquired
et
cetera,
like
it
generally
speaking
for
for
most
things,
the
service
owner
owns
the
poor
space.
O
We've
been
able
to
use
that
we
we
do
have.
This
has
been
very
active
in
Wyoming,
and
we've
worked
a
lot
with
our
headquarters
to
develop
a
an
instruction
memorandum
that
outlines
that
essentially
says
that
a
proponent
can
get
a
pore
space
right
away.
Unlike
most
of
our
right-of-ways
being
surface
oriented,
this
will
be
a
pore
space
right
away,
and
so
we
are
working
with
a
couple
project
proponents
right
now
that
that
have
submitted
their
right-of-way
applications.
O
We're
still
going
through
getting
everything
in
place
before
we
really
kick
off
the
process,
and
so
so
separating
out
the
poor
space
issues
from
the
surface
use
issues
ETC
so
had
very
close
coordination
with
the
Department
of
Environmental
Quality,
since
they
have
the
Primacy
on
the
class
six
UIC
Wells.
That
one
thing
where
we're
very
very
early
on
is
on
the
fees
trying
to
figure
that
out
and
get
it
and
so
we're
engaged
within
the
department
of
interior.
We
have.
O
The
secretary
has
set
up
an
appraisal
valuation
Services
office
there
that
we
work
through
them,
so
we
have
kicked
off
early
coordination
with
with
them
on
what
would
be
the
appropriate
rental
and
fees
associated
with
CO2
sequestration,
so
we're
really
early
on.
We
do
not
have
any
of
those.
Yet
we
are
taking
the
the
approach
that
when
we
get
the
complete
application
in,
we
have
everything
set
up.
We're
going
to
engage
very
early
with
the
appraisal.
Folks,
there
we're
going
to
tie
in
the
project
proponent,
typically,
how
it
works
here
is.
O
If
they
want
to
speed
up
the
process,
the
proponent
will
hire
an
appraiser
that
works
for
the
Appraisal
Services
Group
there
that
sets
out
and
provides
the
information
before
they
provide
us
back
their
recommendations.
Our
our
our
BLM
office
to
the
north
up
in
Montana
has
as
a
project
also
coming
in
that
they're
working
with
and
they're
going
to
take
a
slightly
different
approach.
That
they've
asked
the
proponent.
O
There
is
well
propose
a
value
for
rental
and
CO2
injection
and
will
work
with
Appraisal
Services
to
determine,
if
that's
appropriate,
we're
going
to
start
from
the
other
end
as
the
proponent
has
not
come
in
with
any,
and
hopefully
with
these
two
different
approaches.
We
can
come
up
with
what
that
will
look
like
value-wise,
but
you
know,
we've
got
a
lot
of
got
a
lot
of
work
ahead
here,
just
trying
to
determine
what
will
a
pore
space
right-of-way
look
like.
How
long
does
it
stay
in
place,
the
responsibilities
you
know?
O
We've
talked
about
that
the
legislation
the
legislature
passed
a
lot
of
Provisions
related
to
poor
space,
unitization
and
other
Concepts
from
oil
and
gas
that
those
Concepts
work.
But
when
you
apply
them
to
a
right-of-way,
which
is
just
an
authorization
to
use
something,
that's
a
completely
different
world
versus
a
lease
that
gives
you
a
valid
existing
right,
so
got
a
lot
of
things.
O
We're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
once
we
get
through
that
process,
but
we
realize
working
with
the
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
is
they
need
something
demonstrating
some
horse-based
use
issues
before
they
can
jump
in
to
give
a
Class,
6?
Well,
certification,
that
you
have
it!
You
need
that
certainty.
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
chicken
in
the
egg.
We've
determined
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
jump
in
on
that
poor
space.
Do
it
we'll
tie
in
with
the
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
after
that
comes
out
to
figure
out?
O
D
A
Chairman
Mr
Spencer
any
idea
when
and
I
know
that
we
all
work
in
the
government.
We
know
what
what
it's
like
and
the
speed
we
all
work
at
any
idea.
A
When
you
know
those
resolutions
will
occur
on
the
lease
fees,
the
rental
fees,
whether
it's
a
lease
or
a
right-of-way
or,
and
that
where
Wyoming
is
looking
right
now,
I
know
of
of
probably
four
major
projects
that
people
have
talked
to
me
about
that
really
are
major
major
projects
and
we're
just
trying
to
get
a
handle
on
those
fees
and
all
of
that
and
I
know.
This
is
all
new
territory
for
everyone.
So
any
thoughts.
O
Well,
representing
Burkhart,
we
have
one
project
that
has
a
relatively
small
amount
of
BLM
in
it
480
acres
and
we're
hoping
that
that
one
can
be
fairly
fast
from
the
BLM
perspective
that
we
can
get
with
that
appraisal,
services
and
start
working
through
that
and
come
up
with
a
resolution
on
that
fee
rental.
The
rental
I
should
say
for
the
poor
space
fairly
quickly
and
I
know
I'm,
overly
optimistic,
we're
hoping
like
four
to
six
months
here-
probably
I'm
wrong
on
that
here.
O
O
You
know,
and
we're
going
to
have
a
lot
of
that,
because
some
of
these
this
other
pending
project
we
have
is
extremely
large
I
mean
it's
a
million
acre
project
and
there
is
a
lot
and
I
would
say
it's
probably
80
to
90
percent
lease
for
oil
and
gas.
So
we're
going
to
have
to
look
that
over
very
quickly
to
identify
the
areas
where.
O
Yes,
that's
pore
space,
not
minerals,
we
don't
have
a
conflict
in
this
area,
so
so
that's
really
going
to
be
our
first
step
with
these
big
projects
is:
what
do
we
got
here
and
everything
like
that,
because
that
that
is
a
big
challenge
with
some
of
the
formations
they
want
to
use,
because
in
some
places,
they're
very
clearly
poor
space.
You
know
the
the
engineers
and
geologists
who
work
for
me
can
come
through
that
conclusion
relatively
quickly.
We
got
other
areas
where
it
Shades
out
in
places
there.
O
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
Mr
chairman
my
my
last
question,
which
again
I'm
going
to
change
the
subject.
Completely.
A
number
of
years
ago,
state
of
Wyoming,
BLM
and
Rollins
office
established
a
Cooperative
agreement,
Cooperative
working
Association
on
getting
the
beetle
kill,
Timber
off
of
BLM
land
and
recovering
that
Timber
and
I.
Think
that's
been
one
of
the
more
successful
Cooperative
programs
that
we've
had
it's
made
money
for
the
BLM.
A
It's
made
money
for
the
state
of
Wyoming
I
think
everybody
has
come
out
a
winner
on
that
one,
any
Co
any
thoughts
on
extending
that
to
other
parts
of
the
state.
I
know
the
forest
Services
talked
to
the
state
Forester
about
that,
but
any
thoughts
on
on
doing
that
in
other
portions
of
the
state,
where
you
have
a
substantial
timber,
that's
beetle
kill
to
recover
that
foreign.
M
That
agreement
precedes
me
so
I'm
not
real
familiar
with
it,
but
I
will
tell
you
this
that
we
have
a
really
active
Forester
here
in
the
state
office
with
BLM
and
I,
know
he's
very
tied
into
the
state
state,
I'm
going
to
say
State,
Forest,
Service
and
I
I
forget
the
the
actual
name,
but
very
very
involved
with
the
state.
Foresters
and
I
know
that
he
has
been
very
active
working
with
them
on
other
projects.
N
You
Mr
chairman,
this
is
more
of
a
small
observation,
but
it
was
40
years
ago
in
1982.
My
dad
took
me
down
to
Medicine
Bow
when
they
dedicated
the
first
two
wind
turbines
and
I.
Think
those
were
the
first
two
wind
turbines
in
the
country
and
I.
Remember
him
saying
things
are
going
to
change.
N
That
was
the
only
comment
that
he
made.
He
wasn't
a
big
talker
and
then
we
headed
home,
but
40
years,
it's
not
very
long
ago
that
there
that
was
on
NASA
and
Department
of
energy
were
experimenting
with
the
concept
and
I
believe
that
was
on
Federal
Land.
So
thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
B
B
B
We'll
go
ahead
and
go
there
first.
If
anybody
in
the
room
feels
neat
feel
free
to
come
on
down,
but
it
looks
like
we
have
Travis
McNiven
I
believe.
Is
that
correct?
So
all
right.
Welcome
back
to
this
committee.
Good
to
see
you
Mr
mcnevin
feel
free
to
proceed.
Hi.
Q
Good
morning,
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Travis
mcnevin
here
on
behalf
of
enyo
renewable
renewable
energy.
Really
just
brief
comments
that
wanted
to
be
available
to
support.
Q
In
the
last
meeting
representative
McGuire
did
ask
about
the
fee
structure
related
to
BLM
lands
for
Renewables
versus
oil
and
gas,
and
if
the
state
received
the
the
you
know,
the
50
minus
the
one
one
percent
for
administration
fees
and
I
and
chairman
raised
that
similar
Point
towards
the
end
of
his
his
questions
there
with
the
agency
and-
and
we
just
I
feel
like
that
is
that
is
a
worthwhile
question.
Q
To
ask
certainly
realize
that
it
is
a
federal
issue
and
would
require
Federal
legislation
and
such.
But
it
certainly
we
feel
as
as
the
all
of
the
above
Mantra
as
it
affects
Wyoming
and
energy
in
the
West
in
particular,
where
there
are
BLM
lands.
Significant
BLM
lands
that
that
all
of
the
above
concept
should
also
apply
to
the
energy
as
well
with
the
49
or
the
state
receiving.
Q
You
know
some
some
portion
or
their
portion
of
these
alternative
energy
sources
that
often
get
put
into
that
all
of
the
above
bucket,
and
so
really
very
brief
comments
today
to
support
if
the
committee
did
so
desire
to
look
into
that
further
or,
as
as
the
chairman
said,
send
a
letter
to
our
our
delegation
or
or
the
agencies
Etc.
Q
But
certainly
supportive
of
that
concept
is,
we
feel
like
it
would
be
a
very
useful
and
good
thing
for
for
Wyoming,
where
we
are
seeing
these
these
projects
and
these
forms
of
energy
take
place.
B
L
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Richard
Garrett
and
I'm
here
today,
kind
of
as
a
volunteer
I'll,
say
on
behalf
of
the
Wyoming
energy
forum
and
I'll,
read
very
briefly
their
mission
statement.
They
seek
to
protect
the
Wyoming,
we
love,
while
the
state
makes
its
way
through
the
current
energy
transition.
L
Wyoming's
economy
must
be
financially
sustainable
and
sensitive
to
Social
and
environmental
values
that
underpin
our
quality
of
life.
The
state
should
evaluate
all
forms
of
energy
development
and
design
incentives
and
tax
policy
that
are
fair
and
Equitable,
while
sustaining
the
wildlife,
ecosystems
and
open
Landscapes
that
make
Wyoming
unique
I
would
guess
that
for
the
most
part
we
all
share
those
values.
L
Maybe
we
word
it
a
little
bit
differently,
but
we
all
I
think
recognize
the
challenges
of
energy
development,
I
drove
here
this
morning
in
a
gas-powered
vehicle,
I'm,
very
lucky,
I'm,
not
driving
a
diesel-powered
vehicle.
These
days,
our
home
is
heated
with
natural
gas
I've
owned
homes
in
the
past
that
were
heated
with
coal-fired
energy
I'm
very
grateful
to
the
people
that
have
served
our
state
and
to
the
abundant
resources
that
we've
realized
to
the
benefit
of
the
people
of
the
state
of
Wyoming
as
a
result
of
natural
resource
development.
L
I
think
that
all
of
those
Industries,
and
especially
here
in
the
21st
century,
have
paid
their
way
or
the
legislature
has
done
its
best
to
make
sure
that
that
the
partnership
is
equal
and
and
fair
in
terms
of
renewable
energy
development.
L
As
we've
learned
from
comments
provided
by
the
BLM
this
morning,
Wyoming
is
not
realizing
that
fair
return
for,
in
my
mind
anyway,
in
the
mind
and
in
the
opinion
of
the
Wyoming
energy
form,
Wyoming
is
not
realizing
the
the
benefit
of
renewable
energy
development,
in
the
same
way
that
the
federal
government
is
realizing
benefit.
L
So
I
I
agree
that
a
a
letter
to
the
Congressional
Delegation
might
be
in
order,
but
I'd
also
suggest
to
the
committee
that
you
consider
perhaps
not
in
this
session,
perhaps
in
the
next
interim,
a
bill
that
would
in
many
ways
be
similar
to
that
which
you
considered
as
your
first
agenda
item
this
morning,
and
that
would
say
that
the
state
would
charge
renewable
energy
developers
the
same
rate
that
the
federal
government
is
charging
renewable
energy
Developers
for
rights
of
way
and
rentals
Etc
based
on
acres
and
megawatt
base
plate
megawatt
ratings,
and
if
the
federal
government
begins
to
share
that
amount
that
they're
charging
with
the
state
of
Wyoming,
the
state
of
Wyoming
in
turn,
would
discount
to
renewable
energy
developers
at
a
rate
equivalent
to
that
discount
that
the
federal
government
is
now
sharing
with
the
state.
L
So
I
don't
know
if
that
makes
any
sense,
and
it's
early
days
obviously,
but
we
have
a
renewable
energy.
We
have
many
renewable
energy
developments
in
Wyoming
that
are
that
are
online
we've
seen
impacts
in
the
in
the
Shirley
Basin
Senator
biteman
has
referenced
Golden
Eagle
mortality
rates,
our
visual
Heritage,
is
being
challenged.
L
So,
if
we're
going
to
make
it
good
for
future,
Generations
I
think
that
we
need
to
make
it
good
for
this
generation
too
and
I'm
not
talking
electric
generation
I'm
talking
about
the
people
that
are
that
are
living
in
this
in
the
beautiful
state
of
Wyoming.
You
know:
renewable
energy
development
is
intensive.
There's
a
3
000
megawatt
turbine
project
proposed
in
the
south
central
part
of
the
state
that
occupies
320
000
acres
of
land
by
comparison.
There's
a
448
megawatt
power
station
near
camera
that
occupies
about
1120
Acres.
L
Now
there
there's
coal
mining
that
goes
into
that
equation
as
well,
and
there
are
there's
intense
use
of
water
too,
and
there's
disposal
of
coal
ash
and
so
forth,
and
so
on,
but
there's
disposal
of
wind
turbine
blades
as
well
as
you've
mentioned
Senator
Bonner,
so
I
think
you
know.
Just
to
summarize,
the
legislature,
in
my
mind,
is
always
trying
to
be
fair
and
and
Equitable
and
I
hope
that
we
can
find
a
way
that
we
can
develop
our
renewable
energy
resources
in
a
responsible
way.
L
Make
no
mistake:
I
believe
that
climate
change
is
is
impacting
our
lives,
but
we
need
to
do
it
in
a
very
responsible
way
and
and
I
think
that
that's
what
this
legislature's
obligation
is
I
know
you
take
that
obligation
very
seriously
and
I
look
forward
to
working
with
you
in
any
way.
That's
useful
going
forward.
So
with
that.
B
Thank
you
for
your
testimony,
appreciate
it
representative
McGuire,
do
you
have
any.
N
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
and
I.
Would
just
ask
you
if
you
know
I
think
it's
about
30.
Do
you
know
how
much
of
the
energy
that
we
produce
here
in
the
state
of
Wyoming
that
we
actually
keep
and
use
for
our
residents
and
how
much
is
exported
at
somewhere
around
70
percent
is
exported
out
to
people
out
of
state
who
don't
really
yeah
they're
not
affected
by
whether
it
be
disposal,
issues
or
loss
of
view
sheds
or
anything
else.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
L
Mr,
chairman
representative
McGuire,
that's
that's
a
number.
That's
a
ratio
that
is
familiar
to
me
and
I
think
is
probably
to
most
members
of
this
committee
and
to
build
on
that.
If
I
may
yeah
I
just
don't
think
that
people
outside
of
the
state
of
Wyoming
appreciate
the
value
that
Wyoming
provides
to
their
lives
and
yet,
at
the
same
time,
I
think
that
they
will
take
advantage
of
the
energy
resources
that
we
provide
to
them
and
they
will
I'll
be
frank.
L
I
think
that
they
will
take
any
money
that
we
leave
on
the
table
and
tax
that
energy
production
for
their
own
benefit.
So
you
know
candidly.
Another
reason
in
my
mind
that
a
generation
tax
is
is
also
worthy
of
consideration,
but
absent
discussion
on
that
and
going
back
to
Chairman
boner's
bill
of
earlier
this
morning.
That
might
be
a
might
be
a
path
forward.
L
It's
a
little
bit
more
effective
than
a
resolution
and
a
letter
to
our
Congressional
Delegation
and,
that's
not
to
say
our
Congressional
Delegation
is
not
alert
to
these
challenges,
but
they're
not
as
powerful
as
you
all
are.
Power
is
in
local
government
in
state
governments
and
I.
Ask
you
to
flex
your
muscles
and
and
do
it
for
the
benefit
of
the
people
of
the
state
of
Wyoming.
B
Further
public
comment:
Federal
Energy
development,
oil
and
gas
and
alternatives.
B
Okay,
this
topic
is
closed
committee.
Are
we
going
to
consider
any
Committee
Action
on
this
topic.
B
N
We
have
always
shared
with
the
federal
government,
the
the
royalties
that
come
from
federal
lands
and
that's
because
there
is
an
impact,
whether
it.
O
N
The
city
that's
adjacent
to
it
or
the
gravel
roads
or
the
state
highways.
There
is
an
impact,
and
so
the
federal
government
has
always
very
kindly
shared
the
royalty
Revenue
with
us
to
mitigate
that
I.
Think
fair
is
fair
and
you
know
I
think
that
that
the
discussion
was
not
held
in
a
in
a
judicious
manner
with
regard
to
the
resource
development
for
Renewables
and
I.
Think
that
the
fair
thing
is
for
us
to
receive
the
same
share,
it's
not
going
to
be
a
royalty.
It's
going
to
be.
N
You
know
the
same
share
of
fees
collected
from
renewable
energy.
It
won't
make
any
difference
and
I
think
that
it's
important
to
emphasize
this.
It
won't
make
any
difference
to
the
producer
they're
paying
that
fee,
no
matter
what
the
question
is,
whether
or
not
Wyoming
receives
any
of
those
funds
back
to
mitigate
impact,
again
same
impact
that
we
have
for
minerals
and
and
oil
and
gas.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
D
B
Senator
byman
any
discussion:
okay,
all
those
in
favor,
say
aye,
aye,
aye,
oh,
say
no-
that
passes
unanimously.
Mr
Fuller
we'll
send
a
letter
to
our
delegation
they'll
take
office
in
January,
I'm
assuming
and
ask
them
to
for
their
attention
to
this
issue.
Okay,
so
that
deals
with
that.
Second
topic:
we're
on
to
30
by
30.
Mr
Bud
here
here,
you're
dealing
with
Law
of
Conservation
easements
and
certainly
testified
to
this
committee.
B
Before
about
what
may
be
coming
down
the
road
with
the
30
by
30
topic,
a
topic
of
a
lot
of
I
guess:
concern
for
many
of
us
in
the
state,
especially
I.
B
Think
that
concerns
heightened
by
the
lack
of
knowledge
of
what
exactly
the
plan
is
perhaps
on
the
part
of
the
project,
propose
even
so
feel
free
to
share
any
information
that
you
have
regarding
this
important
topic
and
something
that's
been
kind
of
bad
around
for
a
couple
years
now,
but
near
as
I
can
tell
I,
haven't
heard
any
new
information
but
I'm
looking
forward
to
your
testimony.
R
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
Bob
Bud,
director
of
the
Wyoming
Wildlife
natural
resource
trust.
This
will
probably
be
pretty
short
because
Mr
chairman
I,
haven't
heard
much
more
than
you
have,
but
I
do
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
bring
people,
maybe
back
up
to
speed
on
kind
of
what
has
happened
this
this
all
cropped
up
about
a
year
ago,
a
little
over
a
year
ago,
it
was
rolled
out
and
with
a
considerable
amount
of
fanfare,
and
since
that
time
we
were
probably
the
first
state
to
engage
on
it.
R
Some
of
you
are
involved
in
that
we
brought
a
delegation
from
DC
out
here,
met
with
them.
The
governor
met
with
them.
We
met
with
a
number
of
legislative
people.
We
met
with
the
constituency
groups
and
and
County
governments
and
others
spent
a
full
day
going
through
what
Wyoming
believed
anything
along.
These
lines
should
look
like
and
then
spent
the
next
day
on
a
tour
of
the
state
and
Air
Tour
and
stopped
in
a
couple
different
communities
and
had
local
input
there.
R
We
were
pretty
clear
and
the
governor
has
been
abundantly
clear
about
what
is
and
is
not
acceptable.
Under
the
quote,
30
by
30
or
America,
the
beautiful
banner
designations
are
off
the
table.
As
you
know,
that's
not
something
they
can
do
in
Wyoming
anyway,
but
we
absolutely
reject
the
notion
of
designating.
R
Secondly,
purchases
are
something
that
we
do
not
favor
and
made
it
quite
clear
that
that's
that
this
needs
to
be
a
voluntary,
really
landowner-driven
process
that
that
people
should
engage
in.
We
also
I
think
have
a
strong
focus
on
working
lands.
The
fact
that
we
do
not
want
to
remove
any
of
our
public
or
private
lands
from
productivity,
whether
that
be
Timber
livestock
crops,
whatever
it
is
minerals
as
well,
so
we
threw
that
down
pretty
effectively.
R
They
they
did
listen,
as
as
you
can
see,
you
haven't
seen
anything
come
out
that
is
countered
to
those
and
then
on
top
of
that
they
asked
us.
They
put
the
challenge
back
to
us
and
said
well
tell
us
what
you
would
do
if
you
had
resources,
and
so
collectively
we
put
together
a
list
of
broad
topics
that
we
thought
should
be
addressed
or
could
be
addressed,
they're,
not
things
we
aren't
doing
now.
It's
just.
R
We
could
do
more
of
them
and
that
broad
list
of
things
was
Forest
Health
that
just
came
up
a
few
minutes
ago.
In
your
conversation
with
the
BLM
rangeland
Health,
particularly
Sagebrush
ecosystems,
as
as
you
know,
we've
got
potential
challenges
revolving
around
Sagebrush
biome
and
what
may
or
may
not
come
out
of
that
water,
water,
quality
and
quantity,
both
as
that
ties
back
to
fish
passage
into
River,
Restorations
and
migration,
and
and,
as
you
know
again,
there's
been
a
bit
of
movement
on
migration
relative
to
potential
funding.
R
The
only
thing
that
has
happened
to
my
knowledge
that
that
technically
may
fall
under
the
30
by
30
Banner
is
there.
Has
money
has
been
forwarded
to
the
state
through
the
U.S
fish
and
wildlife,
Service
Partners
in
fish
and
wildlife
program,
and
that
has
been
for
Sagebrush,
restoration
and
they've
got
some
pilot
projects
in
Fremont,
carbon
counties
and
the
other
is
for
invasive
species,
primarily
invasive
annual
grass
eradication
or
control.
R
Believe
the
the
one
thing
that
that
has
come
out
of
this
and
and
I
again,
I-
don't
I,
don't
I
want
to
make
it
clear,
I'm,
not
wrapping
this
in
the
30
by
30
or
America,
the
beautiful
banner,
because
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
we've
been
working
on
for
literally
decades
and
and
it
may
be
beneficial
to
ask
Mr
mcgagna
to
join
me
when
we
get
into
the
Q
a
on
this,
because
he's
been
involved
as
well
and
was
recently
in
DC,
where
Governor
Gordon
and
secretary
vilsack
signed
a
memorandum
of
agreement
relative
to
migration
and
habitat
leasing.
R
We
briefed
this
I
briefed
this
committee
before
on
the
concept
of
habitat
leasing,
I
think
you're
all
very
well
aware
of
what
it
is.
It's
a
short-term
payment,
annual
payment
for
benefits
or
or
values,
habitat
values
that
are
associated
with
different
habitat
uses
and
and
what
we
decided
to
focus
on
as
a
as
a
pilot
project
for
the
nation
was
migration,
and
so
we
have.
We
have
requested
funds
which
they
added
five
million
dollars
to
this
year
for
Habitat
leasing,
they've
rolled
out
next
year
for
the
budget
they'll
they'll
ramp.
R
That
up
to
another
I
think
it's
15
million
yeah,
another
15
million,
so
6
and
15
is
21
million
dollars.
It'll
be
made
available
for
Habitat
leasing
as
it
relates
to
migration.
We
will
focus
on
four
priority
areas
in
the
state.
It's
important
to
point
out
that
one
of
the
reasons
they
they
like
to
work
in
Wyoming
is
that
we
have
tremendous
science
backing
up
what
we
bring
to
them.
We've
got
a
great
Game
and
Fish
Department.
We've
got
a
strong
record
of
of
research
and
of
documentation.
R
We
can
show
where
those
migration
corridors
are
where
those
animals
move
and-
and
so
it's
a
credible
thing
to
fund
it.
Those
four
areas
are
no
surprise.
There
are
the
three
designated
corridors
and
Governor
Gordon's
migration
initiative.
That's
the
Saratoga
Valley
the
bags,
little
Snake,
River
Valley,
Pinedale
area,
the
sublet
and
then
the
fourth
one
is
Cody.
Where
there's
been
a
significant
amount
of
research
done
on
migration
in
and
out
of
the
park,
primarily,
but
also
up
and
down
the
absoricus.
R
That
program
is
in
its
development
stages:
I,
don't
I
just
got
off
the
phone
yesterday
with
the
deputy
secretary,
and
he
said
just
let
the
committee
know
that
our
priority
is
Wyoming.
We
appreciate
this
partnership
and
we
want
to
move
forward
and
figure
out
how
to
do
it
right
here.
I
think.
R
That's
that's
complementary
to
us
to
the
work
you
do
to
the
work
that
the
people
in
this
state
do
and
I
think
that
this
month
in
November
they
should
be
rolling
out
some
of
the
criteria
that
will
be
used
under
equip
under
ale
under
their
different
programs.
It
it
will
be
messy.
I
will
tell
you
that,
because
you're
dealing
with
the
federal
government
you're
also
dealing
with
two
different
agencies
in
USDA,
so
you've
got
to
deal
with
FSA
and
nrcs,
and
you've
got
to
find
a
way
for
those
to
meld.
R
They
should
have
guidance
out
this
month,
as
I
said
as
to
how
that
will
play
out,
and
that
will
be
guidance
that
will
go
to
the
landowners
and,
and
then
the
SEC
second
part
of
that
is
that
there
is
a
an
add-on
trying
to
add
human
capacity
to
make
sure
we
have
enough
people
to
process
any
of
those
leases
as
they
come
through.
To
answer
questions
that'll
probably
be
done
collectively
by
a
lot
of
different
entities:
conservation,
districts,
Game
and
Fish
biologists.
R
Probably
there
will
be
some
contract
people
who
will
work
through
entities
like
the
stock,
Growers
and
others.
But
at
this
point
that's
where
we
are
relative
to
the
topic,
the
broad
topic,
I
guess,
if
you
will
Mr
chairman
the
last
thing
I
would
add,
is
that
this
is
compounded
and
and
probably
for
you
made
more
confusing
by
the
infrastructure
act.
There's
a
lot
of
the
things
that
we
are
trying
to
accomplish.
That
will
actually
fall
under
that
funding
source.
R
So
we
may
be
look,
you
may
look
at
it
and
say:
well,
is
this
this,
or
is
this
that,
and
the
answer
is
yes,
it's
both
or
all
of
them.
An
example
of
that
would
be
the
migration.
There
is
money
in
there
for
Highway
Crossings.
We
have
submitted
applications
for
the
three
top
priorities
there,
we'd
love
to
get
all
three
of
them
approved,
I,
don't
know
if
that'll
happen,
but
that's
money
that
you
allocated
last
time
for
the
match
for
that,
and
so
we
we
have
a
leg
up.
R
If
you
will,
because
we
do
have
the
matching
funds
in
the
bank
ready
to
go
if
we
get
those
approved
right
now,
I
think
the
collective
frustration
that
we
all
have
is
we're
waiting
for
the
rules,
we're
waiting
to
know
what
the
what
the
rules
of
the
game
are
and
then
we
can
suit
up
and
go
out
and
grab
the
ball
or
hit
the
puck
or
whatever
the
whatever
the
game
is
so
Mr
chairman,
that's
probably
a
about
as
much
as
I
could
tell
you
now
again.
R
I'd
I'd
welcome
any
comments
from
either
Mr
magagna
or
director
Archuleta.
If
they
know
more
than
I
do,
but
that's
that's
as
up
to
date,
as
I
am
today
Mr,
chairman,
okay,.
P
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
foreign.
P
As
you
probably
know,
I'm
pretty
concerned
about
this
30
30
thing,
that's
going
on
with
our
from
our
federal
government
and
the
two
questions.
I
have
right
now,
based
on
what
you've
told
us
are
this:
are
there
any
strings
attached
to
this
Federal
money?
That's
going
to
these
migration
corridors?
R
Mr,
chairman
representative
winner,
I'm
I'm,
I,
guess
jaded
enough
at
all
the
years
I've
worked
in
this
there's
always
strings
attached.
If
there's
money,
they
are
pretty
limited.
In
other
words,
if,
if
you
were
going
to
do
your
habitat
leasing,
there
would
be
a
management
plan
that
would
say
I'm
going
to
manage
for
migration,
and
that
would
mean
you
would
rise
to
the
top
of
the
list
for
fence
modification.
If
that
was
appropriate,
that
you
would
not
go
build
an
impediment
in
the
middle
of
that
migration
route
that
you
might.
R
You
would
agree
to
things
that
that
would
be
that
you're
already
doing
frankly,
that
would
be
the
strings
attached
would
be
that
there
would
be
an
agreement
to
manage
for
what
you're
being
paid
for
as
far
as
the
state.
This
is
a
federal
program
and
we
worked
through
a
lot
of
scenarios
where
the
state,
through
the
wildlife,
trust
or
through
Game
and
Fish
or
through
the
Department
of
Agriculture,
might
end
up
being
a
partner,
Dollar
Wise,
none
of
those
work
under
the
federal
rules.
So
it's
a
Federal
program.
R
The
state
will
be
engaged.
If
you
want
to
look
at
expenditure
or
risk,
it
would
be
Manpower.
You
know
your
local
biologist
would
probably
pick
up
an
additional
workload
in
in
answering
questions
from
landowners.
You
might
have
that
at
the
at
the
county
level,
we
are
trying
to
work
on
making
sure
that,
if
that's
administered
through
a
local
Conservation
District
or
something
that
they
would
actually
be
compensated
for,
that
and
no
one
said
no
to
that
notion.
So
at
this
point,
I
think
it's
not
really
any
different.
Again,
it's
not
30
by
30.
R
we'd
be
doing
this
anyway.
It's
the
same
kind
of
of
restrictions
or
the
same
kind
of
expectations
that
you
would
have
under
the
equip
program
or
under
any
of
the
nrcs
programs
that
are
on
the
ground
today.
P
If
you
remember
at
our
last
TRW
committee,
meeting
The,
Game
and
Fish
brought
up
the
fact
that
the
Department
of
Agriculture
is
pushing
these
conservation
easements
on
Agland
and
I
asked
Miss
Bruce
if
she
would
check
on
what
these
conservation
easements
have
if
they've
changed
any
in
their
in
the
requirements
or
whatever,
and
so
I
just
wondered
if
you
had
been
in
touch
with
her
at
all
to
know,
if
there's
any
changes
that
have
occurred
that
might
be
adverse
to
the
the
individual
Ranchers
still
having
control
on
their
property
over
a
period
of
years.
P
This
in
perpetuity
Clause
that
seems
to
keep
popping
up
is
a
real
concern
for
mine
of
mine
Sean.
Thank
you.
R
Mr,
chairman
representative
winner,
if
anything
I
would
say
that
the
the
restrictions
on
conservation
easements
that
are
funded
by
USDA
have
been
relaxed.
They
are
much
less
restrictive
than
the
ones
that
I
was
looking
at
20
or
25
years
ago.
The
reason
for
that
is
that
people
have
realized
that
the
landowner,
basically
all
they're
doing,
is
saying
I'm
not
going
to
build
houses
on
it.
I'm
still
going
to
grow
cattle,
I'm
going
to
still
grow
sheep
I'm
going
to
grow,
hay
I'm,
going
to
do
those
things,
and
so
the
restrictions
are
pretty
limited.
R
They.
Basically
you
just
agree
to
do
that
again.
That
may
be
a
topic
for
this
committee
to
go
into
I
mean
it
would
take
probably
half
a
day
and
get
the
the
land
trust
involved.
Get
people
who
do
these
involved
get
landowners
who
have
done
them,
but
but
at
this
point
no,
there
are
no
further
restrictions.
N
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
so
Mr
Budd
I'd
like
to
discuss
with
you
a
little
bit
the
Martone
Ranch
purchase
outside
of
Casper
and
just
to
set
the
table
because
I
think
it's
fair
to
set
the
table.
So
it's
my
understanding
that
the
ranch
was
for
sale
and
then
it
was
somewhat
taken
off
the
market
and
the
issue
that
the
governor
has
and
I
applaud
the
governor
for
bringing
this
to
light.
The
issue
the
governor
had
was
that
the
negotiations
went
dark
and
that
nobody
saw
what
was
going
on.
N
There
was
no
opportunity
for
any
private
individual
to
bid
on
the
land
no
opportunity
for
anyone
else.
The
money
came
from
the
conservation
fund
through
the
30
by
30
initiative
and
I
think
that
the
intentions
were
all
very
honorable
and
very
good
to
take
that
land
and
make
it
available
to
Sportsmen
and
things
and
I
I
applaud
that
I
I
use
that
or
I
enjoy
the
Platte
River
myself.
N
But
the
governor's
issue
was
that
it
didn't
follow
any
form
of
procedure
than
anybody
else
would
have
to
whether
it
was
an
oil
and
gas
lease
or
any
other
type
of
purchase.
There
would
be
public
scoping
and
there
would
be
hearings
and
there
would
be
an
ability
for
other
people
to
weigh
in
and
I
think
that
was
my
understanding
is
that
that
was
the
governor's
issue
and
thanks
to
the
governor
for
sticking
to
his
guns.
N
My
question
is:
there
was
an
article
in
the
paper
yesterday
that
there
was
a
pause
that
had
been
entered
into
between
the
state
of
Wyoming
and
the
BLM
to
pause,
everything
and
sort
things
out,
and
it
wasn't
very
clear:
I
thought
that
money
had
already
changed
hands,
I
thought
the
deed
was
signed
and
it
was
a
done
deal.
Do
you
have
further
Insight
that
you
can
share
with
us?
That
is
public
information?
I,
don't
want
to
ask
you
something:
that's
not
public
at
this
point.
So
thank
you.
Mr
chairman.
R
Mr,
chairman
representi
McGuire
I,
don't
have
any
further
information
than
you
do.
I
was
involved
in
conversations
early
on
about
the
lack
of
transparency
and
the
process.
I
concur
with
what
the
governor
has
said.
I
have
defended
that
to
people
in
DC
and
elsewhere
as
I
read
the
paper
as
you
did.
It
looks
to
me,
like
that,
resonated
with
the
Borderland
appeals
and
they
said
hey,
you
need
to
go
and
do
follow
the
process.
A
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
director
Bud
over
the
years
the
state's
been
involved
in
a
number
of
conservation,
which
I
would
call
conservation
issues
and
some
of
them
you
and
I
personally
involved
in
between
eat
conservation,
easements
access,
easements,
habitat
restoration,
there's
a
laundry
list.
How
much?
If
you
can
give
us
a
brief
idea,
I
I,
don't
you
don't
need
to
do
a
detailed
calculation?
How
much
percentage
of
the
state
of
Wyoming's
land
has
been
involved
in
all
of.
R
If
you
collectively
look
at
all
of
the
different
things
we
do
in
this
state
and
and
I
I
would
add
that
we
do
largely
voluntarily.
Industry
responds
very
well
when
we
say
here's
an
issue.
They
respond
incredibly
well.
Agriculture
responds.
R
Yeah,
so
if
you
were
to
look
at
that,
I
mean
Sage.
Grouse
core
areas
are
24
of
the
state's
surface.
That's
a
restriction!
If
you
look
at
conservation,
easements
they're
a
minor
fraction
of
that.
But
it's
it's
significant.
If
you
look
at
the
work,
the
initiatives
that
we've
undertaken
in
the
Black
Hills
or
if
you
look
at
the
initiatives
we've
undertaken
on
the
Wyoming
range
or
in
the
absorica
front,
we're
talking
millions
of
acres
in
different
types
of
of
projects,
you
go
beyond
that
and
look
at
River
restoration
projects.
R
We've
done,
essentially
the
encampment
in
the
plat,
from
the
Colorado
State
Line,
clear
to
and
through
Saratoga
we've
done,
the
North
Platte
through
the
town
of
Casper.
We've
worked
on
the
North
Platte
on
the
on
in
Goshen
County.
If
you
take,
you
know
any
major
river
system
and
then
look
at
the
tributaries
in
representing
winners
area.
You've
taken
all
of
those
tributaries
up
there
that
go
into
the
Grable
and
into
the
wood
and
those
and
and
created
fish
passage.
That
is
hundreds
of
miles
of
fish
passage
that
didn't
exist
10
20
years
ago.
R
It
is,
it
is
a
significant
portion
of
the
State,
if
you,
if
you
add
all
of
the
different
conservation
initiatives
together
and
I
and
I'm
very
proud
to
say
that
in
doing
that,
we
have
not
restricted
our
traditional
Industries,
whether
it's
agriculture
or
it's
timbering,
or
it's
aggregate,
industry
and
and
and
I
think
that
we've
found
ways
to
do
that
and
and
do
both
at
the
same
time.
But
the
the
percentage
I
that
totally
impacted,
probably
60
65.
That.
A
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
Mr
bud,
that's
what
I
was
thinking
somewhere
between
50
and
75,
and
that
in
in
in
my
County
and
in
the
new
district
and
everything
adjacent
to
it,
an
awful
lot
of
really
great
projects
over
the
years,
whether
done
by
Wildlife
trust
fund
done
by
private
organizations
that
they've
just
volunteered
to
put
in
water
wells
for
wildlife
or
or
whatever
so,
and
that
and
I
think
if
you
had
some
of
these
Wildlife
Crossings
to
to
defragment
the
land,
you're,
probably
even
looking
at
a
greater
number
and
and
that
and
Mr
magagna
can
probably
add
something
to
that
with
all
the
work
the
landowners
the
AG
Community
have
done
too.
A
R
Mr,
chairman
I
I,
completely
agree
with
that
we
do
a
tremendous
job
in
this
state
and
I.
Think
the
the
point
that
you
just
made
that
should
not
be
left
without
comment
is
that,
while
the
wildlife
trust
may
have
money
in
almost
all
of
them,
there
are
countless
we
have
over
150
Partners
who
have
money
in
it.
We
have
federal
dollars,
we
have
local
dollars,
we
have
private,
we
have
landowner
dollars,
so
it
is.
R
B
Okay,
any
public
comment
on
this
topic:
30
by
30.,
it
looks
like
we
don't
have
anything
online.
Is
that
correct,
Mr,
Floor,
okay,
very
good?
Okay.
So
anybody
here
on
the
room,
public
comment,
okay,
public
comment
is
closed.
Committee
got
an
update
that
there's
very
little
movement
on
this
area,
still
questioning
what
conservation
means
and
by
some
definitions,
I
think
70
of
the
state
is
already
conserved,
so
maybe
more
concerning.
If
you
live
in
Nebraska
I,
guess
so,
okay,
so
that
being
said,
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
Commerce
County
Eis
update.
B
We
have
a
stock
Growers
Mr
mcgagna
on
the
agenda.
First,
so
feel
free
come
on
down
I'll
just
set
up
a
little
bit.
You'll
remember
this
was
a
very
important
project.
That's
why
I
want
to
say
about
2014.
B
You
know
doing
the
Eis
for
significant
amount
of
oil
and
gas
development
in
Commerce,
County,
obviously
something
near
and
dear
to
my
heart
and
the
area
of
the
state.
That's
began
to
really
shift
from
exploration
to
full-on
production
in
the
Power,
River
Basin,
and
so
a
law
of
important
collaborative
work
went
into
this
document.
It's
a
I
think
a
success
story
of
you
say
you
know
landowners
and
oil
and
gas
and
everybody
working
together
to
produce
a
really
good
outcome
for
everybody,
and
so
we've
had
an
update.
B
Unfortunately,
there
is
a
lawsuit
filed
against
the
federal
government
regarding
this
Eis,
and
so
significant
development,
I
would
say,
and
so
we're
here
to
share
our
thoughts
on
it.
So
Mr
mcganga,
thank
you.
So
much
for
being
here
feel
free
to
take
it
away.
Thank.
S
S
Mr
over
Mueller
I
will
confine
mine
somewhat
to
a
little
background
on
this
issue
and
and
explain
why,
as
a
representative
of
particularly
of
surface
land,
only
interest,
many
of
whose
interests
also
include
minerals
that
that
we
see
this
is
a
very
important
issue
and
have
have
engaged
in
it
directly
for
just
a
little
bit
of
brief
background
that
the
issue
can
be
summed
up
here
in
the
expression,
Fifi
fad
and
basically
what
that
means
that
we're
talking
about
in
areas
where
the
surface
is
privately
owned.
S
The
minerals
underneath
that
surface
are
privately
owned
in
most
instances,
not
necessarily
by
the
surface
owner
but
by
private
parties,
but
because
of
the
expansion
of
directional
drilling,
which
is
in
a
savior
in
this
state.
Some
federal
minerals
are
being
produced
with
the
weld
that's
being
drilled
on
the
private
land,
and
so
our
engagement
in
it
is
because
we're
concerned
with
impacts
of
what
this
legisl.
This
litigation
could
have
on
the
rights
of
private
surface
mineral
owners.
S
Kind
of
what's
behind
this
is
a
memorandum
was
issued
in
2018
by
the
then
Secretary
of
interior
Bernhardt,
and
to
quote
one
section
from
it,
he
says:
blm's
jurisdiction
extends
to
surface
facilities
on
entirely
non-federal
lands
solely
to
the
extent
of
assuring
production,
accountability
for
royalties,
in
other
words,
if
the,
if
the
Wells
on
private
land
and
directionally
drills
into
Federal
lands
that
have
been
properly
leased
and
an
APD
issued
that
they're
only
interested
in
making
sure
the
federal
government's
getting
its
oil
fees.
S
But
but
nevertheless,
it's
recognizes
that
it's
the
private
landowners
on
Whose
land,
the
Wells
Building
drilled,
and
they
should
be
the
primary
Authority
and
they
go
on
to
talk
about
some
of
the
ways
that
there
still
has
to
be
some
compliance
with
the
Endangered
Species
Act,
with
NEPA,
with
the
National
Historic
preservation
act,
but
it's
minimal
in
terms
of
the
Federal
engagement
as
as,
as
they
kind
of
explain
it.
If
the
world
would
have
drilled
anyway.
S
If
there
hadn't
been
any
federal,
Nexus,
then
they're
in
they
granting
an
APD.
Their
engagement
is
only
with
regards
to
the
down-hole
environmental
impacts.
Nothing
with
regard
to
surface.
If
it
appears
that
a
well
would
only
be
drilled
if
the
federal
APD
is
issued,
then
it
goes
a
little
beyond
what
that
original
sentence
read
and
says
that,
then
you
should
consider
all
potential
environmental
impacts
on
the
federal
and-
and
that
involves
a
number
of
issues
that
we're
not
directly
involved
with
air
quality
and
and
some
of
the
the
other
environmental
issues
there.
S
But,
but,
and
the
only
thing
that
really
requires
in
those
cases
is
that
the
federal
government,
if
there's
a
federal
Nexus
because
of
an
APD,
does
have
to
have
an
access
agreement
with
the
private
land
owner
through
the
company.
That's
drilling
the
well
that
allows
them
to
come
onto
the
site
for
inspection
enforcement
Authority,
but
the
their
Authority
is
limited
to
down-hole
operations
and
production
accountability,
in
other
words
getting
the
royalties
out
of
it.
S
So
it's
a
little
bit
nebulous
there,
but
it
was
a
very
positive
step
in
our
view,
when
secretary
Bernhardt
issued
that
that
the
federal
agency,
just
because
there's
a
Nexus
to
a
directional
drilling
that
they're
not
seeing
there
telling
you
how
the
well
can
be
put
on
your
private
land
back
in
July
of
this
year,
there
was
a
lawsuit
filed
by
one
of
the
plaintiffs
in
the
current
lawsuit,
not
in
the
in
citing
any
specific
instances
such
as
Converse
County,
but
just
a
general
legal
challenge
to
that.
S
I
am
that
secretary
Bernhard
had
issued,
and
the
claim
was
that
that
was
in
violation
of
NEPA
and
violation
of
them.
Minerals,
management,
act
and
middle
leasing.
Act
in
a
couple
of
other
areas-
and
we
looked
at
that-
we
became
very
concerned
we
and
and
the
petroleum
Association
discussed
it
together
and
were
prepared
to
engage
ourselves
in
that
litigation.
S
S
Unfortunately,
it
came
on
the
Converse
County,
with
the
litigation
that's
now
being
filed
on
the
7th
of
September
by
that
same
original
group,
Western
watersheds
project,
as
well
as
by
a
Wyoming
group,
The,
Potter,
River,
Basin,
Resource,
Council
and
basically
their
their
legal
claim-
is
that
secretary
bernhardt's
instruction
memorandum
is
an
unlawful
National
policy
that
it
conflicts
with
mineral
leasing,
act
that
conflicts
with
their
requirements
under
NEPA
and
Esa,
and
all
of
these
other
acts,
and
they
quote
some
language
from
the
Middle
Eastern
act
that
requires
the
BLM
to
regulate
All,
Surface
disturbing
activities
conducted
pursuant
to
any
federal
mineral
lease
and
saying
well,
there's
a
federal
lease
here,
even
though
the
activities
aren't
accruing
on
the
federal
land.
S
That's
that's
an
interpretation
that
I'm
sure
the
Court's
going
to
be
faced
with
with
deciding
there,
and
they
also
contend
that
VM
has
the
authority
to
condition
the
extraction
of
federal
minerals
on
the
developers
agreement
to
engage
in
a
refrain
from
certain
conduct
on
the
private
lands,
and
you
know
in
my
mind,
I
turned
that
around.
S
Does
that
mean,
if
they're
going
to
drill
well
on
on
BLM
land
or
on
federal
land,
somewhere
that
and
due
to
directional
drilling,
it's
going
to
reach
into
some
mineral
interest
that
a
private
landowner
has
on
their
private
land
that
then
the
private
land
owner
is
going
to
be
able
to
dictate
how
that
well
is
drilled
on
the
federal
Alliance
I
mean
if
it's
fair,
let's
be
fair
on
both
sides
and
I
I
suspect
that
would
not
go
over
very
well
but
anyway,
and
what
they're
seeking
asking
the
court
to
do
is
to
set
aside
all
Fifi
fedwells
in
the
Converse
County
project
and
I.
S
Think
that's
currently,
if
I
recall
about
225
Wells
that
have
already
been
permitted,
most
of
which
are
Fifi
Fed.
So
it
has
a
significant
impact,
certainly
impacts
many
of
our
members
in
the
area
that
have
leases
on
their
minerals
or
leases
for
drilling
on
their
private
lands.
As
far
as
the
current
status
of
that
the
federal
government,
the
BLM
and
Department
of
interior
have
until
November
17th
to
file
their
brief
in
response
to
the
complaint
that
was
filed.
So
right
now,
we've
been
in
touch
at
least
on
our
behalf
with
legal
counsel.
S
We're
waiting
for
that
to
be
filed
to
see
what
position
the
the
federal
federal
government
will
take
in
this
case
made,
perhaps
speaking
out
of
turn,
but
based
what
I'm,
seeing
in
so
many
other
cases
with
the
current
Administration
I
would
not
be
at
all
surprised.
If
there's
some
type
of
a
settlement
that
is
reached,
the
feds
would
file
their
brief
and
then
they
would
sit
down,
have
some
settlement
discussions
and
that
that
seems
to
be
happening
fairly,
frequently
right
now
and
unfortunately,
then,
as
as
external
parties.
S
That
basically
leaves
us
pretty
much
out
of
the
process,
but
we
intend
to
follow
this
closely
because
we
think
it's
a
it's
a
dangerous
precedent
in
terms
of
not
just
oil
and
gas
drilling,
but
if,
if
the
fact
that
an
activity
occurs
on
both
private
and
federal
land
creates
a
federal
Nexus
that
gives
the
federal
government
a
right
to
control
on
what
happens
on
the
private
land.
You
know
to
what
extremes
can
that
go
if
it's
a
wind
energy
projects
on
both
I
guess
at
the
at
the
furthest?
Extreme?
S
Does
that
give
the
federal
government
a
a
legal
right
to
dictate
how
I
manage
my
private
land
and
so
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
serious
precedent
out
there
from
our
perspective
of
as
a
surface
owner,
and
that's
why
we
tend
to
be
engaged
in
and
I'm
sure
that
Mr
Oberman
Miller
will
have
a
much
stronger
views
and
be
able
to
express
them
in
terms
of
what
the
impact
will
be,
which
I
think
is
huge
on
Mineral
development
right
now
in
the
under
the
Congress
County
project,
but
potentially
on
other
projects
across
the
West,
in
particular,
with
that
Mr
chairman
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
B
Okay,
thank
you
for
your
testimony
and
your
engagement
on
this
issue.
Mr
mcgang.
Now
any
questions
for
the
stock,
Growers
I
guess
I
just
have
one.
You
know
that
they
asked
for
the
and
I'm
an
attorney
asked
for
those
permissions
to
be
set
aside
and
I'm,
just
wondering
how
that
could
possibly
work
in
real
life
and
looking
at
the
list
of
the
the
apds
that
they
challenged
it
and
matching
up.
Just
you
know,
living
in
Commerce
County.
B
Some
of
those
are,
you
know,
may
have
already
been
drilled,
and
so
just
the
lawsuit
is
self-esteem
seems
to
be
extraordinarily
sloppy.
Sloppily
put
together,
there
wasn't
any
finding
a
fact.
I
would
imagine
from
their
part
they're
just
throwing
stuff
against
the
wall
and
seeing
what
is
going
to
stick
and
I
won't
get
into
too
many
other
issues.
B
But
you
know
if
you
read
the
lawsuit,
you
think
that
the
BLM
is
responsible
for
managing
wildlife
and
then
say
you
think
that
the
BLM
is
responsible
for
managing
water
and,
of
course,
we
all
know
that
the
state
of
Wyoming
is
responsible
for
managing,
while
at
the
state
of
Wyoming
is
with
the
very
few
exceptions,
the
state
of
Wyoming
is
responsible
for
managing
our
water
and
the
APD
process,
through
which
you
know
the
billon
has
to
go
through
on
some
occasions.
B
Isn't
they're,
not
the
lead
agency
when
it
comes
to
protecting
these
resources,
which
we
all
very
much
deeply
care
about
here
in
Wyoming,
so
just
wondering
if
I
know,
you're
an
attorney.
That's
why
I'm
asking
it
what
you
you
know
if
there
is
assume
and
settled
situation
what
the
impact
could
be
specifically,
especially
if
you
know
some
of
the
activity,
that's
under
question
is
already
taken
in
place.
Oh.
S
Ms
chairman
certainly
be
a
guessing
game
on
my
part,
but
I
I.
Think
a
first
step
would
be
that
no
no
future
apds
would
be
granted
until
this
issue
was
resolved
or
under
it
would
be
they
would
rent
it
under
a
new
resolution
that
was
acceptable
to
the
to
the
plaintiffs.
I
could
see
that
there
would
be
a
stay
on
drilling
any
new
wells
under
apds
that
had
already
been
issued.
S
The
the
third
stage
of
that,
which
would
be
perhaps
the
most
onerous
and
I,
don't
know
where
War
Court
would
come
down
on
that
is
stopping
any
production
from
Wells
that
may
have
been
drilled
to
be
deemed
in
violation
of
these
Federal
statutes
and
and
I.
Don't
know
that
would
go
that
far.
One
of
the
things
you
know
what
were
these
suits
are
filed
is
always
critical.
S
This
was
filed
in
the
federal
district
court
in
the
D.C
circuit
and
that's
almost
a
given
in
these
types
of
cases,
because
none
of
these
environmental
plaintiffs
want
to
be
in
the
10th
circuit
in
which
includes
the
state
of
Wyoming,
because
it
tends
to
be
far
more
friendly
to
our
business
interests
and
private
property
rights
and
that
so
it's
in
the
DC
circuit
I
have
no
reason
to
believe
that
the
the
judges
in
that
circuit
have
a
good
practical
understanding
of
oil
and
gas
development
in
Converse,
County
Wyoming
and
that's
always
a
concern.
B
T
Oh
thank
you.
Mr
chairman
versus
committee,
Peterborough,
Mueller,
petroleum
Association
of
Wyoming
nice
to
see
you
all
and
I
apologize
for
my
tardiness
this
morning,
while
I
Ted
to
my
family.
Thank
you
for
that.
I
appreciate
your
work
this
morning
as
well.
I
was
listening
in
as
I
could
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
those
topics
too.
I
decided
not
to
come
up
just
because
I
was
going
to
be
here
in
interest
of
time.
So
you
can
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
other
questions.
T
Mr
mcgagna
did
an
excellent
job,
particularly
on
the
Fifi
fed
question,
so
I'll.
Let
that
stand
we're
in
alignment
with
him
on
on
all
of
those
concerns.
As
I
imagine,
you
are
as
well.
Mr
chairman
I
wanted
to
just
take
my
time
for
a
moment
just
to
talk
about
the
CC,
the
Commerce
County
Eis
and
what
what
it
actually
is
and
what
it
does
in
order
to
respond
a
little
bit
to
the
rhetoric
from
the
folks
who
filed
the
litigation
to
vacate
it.
T
Some
of
it
is
just
obviously
a
little
bit
of
a
spin.
Some
of
it
is
is
pretty
important
in
terms
of
what
what
they're,
claiming
and
I
think
it's
important
for
you
and
for
anybody
watching
to
to
remember
what
what
it
is.
First
of
all,
there
was
development
in
this
area
prior
to
the
the
record
of
decision
and
creating
this
Congress
County
Eis,
and
so
in
the
event
that
it's
vacated
there,
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
there
wouldn't
be
production
there.
The
issue
is,
it
becomes
a
lot
more.
T
It
becomes
a
lot
more
difficult
for
production
to
happen
there
and
what
what
that
would
do
is
repudiate.
What
I
think
is
is
one
of
the
best
collaborative
efforts
between
all
of
the
stakeholders
in
this
area.
In
a
multiple
use
scenario,
where
the
federal
government
and
the
stakeholders,
including
landowners,
grazing
permittees,
oil
and
gas,
and
all
that
got
together
and
figured
out.
T
How
can
we
meet
the
needs
of
this
area
in
a
way
that
protects
wildlife
in
a
way
that
protects
the
the
people
who
live
there
and
who
need
to
make
a
living
there
and
and
and
access
what
is
now
becoming?
As
you
mentioned
a
very
desirable
resource,
it
is
the
sweet
spot
for
Wyoming.
We
have
26
rigs
running
right
now.
T
16
of
those
are
in
the
pot
over
Basin
they're,
not
all
in
the
Converse
County
Eis
area,
but
but
a
great
number
of
them
are
and
and
a
large
part
of
that
is
as
a
result
of
the
work
of
the
CIS.
So
all
that
throw
clearing
aside,
let
me
just
say
a
couple
of
things
to
respond
to
some
of
the
the
red
rhetoric
about
it.
T
First
of
all,
the
charges
made
that
this,
of
course,
was
done
quickly
that
we
sort
of
rushed
into
this,
so
that
we
could
just
you
know,
make
sure
that
we
drove
oil
as
as
fast
as
possible.
Just
a
reminder
that
this
project
started
under
the
Obama
Administration,
and
it
was
initially
worked
on
by
Obama,
Administration,
Employees
and
appointees,
along
with
all
the
stakeholders,
it
took
nearly
seven
years
to
complete,
on
average,
the
department
of
interior
work
in
in
from
notice
of
intent
to
rod
on
average
takes
about
four
and
a
half
years.
T
This
one
took
nearly
seven
I
I,
don't
usually
view
that
as
a
rush,
maybe
some
people
do,
but
this
is
very
well
well
thought
out
and
and
negotiated
over
time
regarding
the
size,
the
the
litigation
itself
and
then
also
in
quotes
from
the
plaintiffs
and
then
parroted
by
some
of
their
allies
in
the
Press
is
that
they
call
it
a
delaware-sized
project,
I
think
in
order
to
imply
and
perhaps
scare
people
into
thinking
that
every
square
inch
of
a
Delaware
sized
project
is
going
to
be
industrialized
on
our
on
our
Open
Spaces
in
Wyoming,
the
project
area
itself,
the
entire
boundary
of
the
project
area.
D
T
Let
me
just
make
sure
I
have
the
right
numbers
here
is
1.5
million
Acres.
That
is
true,
however,
even
if
you
assume
all
of
the
production
that
is
assumed
under
the
Eis
which
I'll
get
back
to
later,
that
is
a
big
Assumption
of
itself,
but
let's
assume
it
for
for
a
moment.
The
total
surface
disturbance
during
the
drilling
activity
in
the
first
10
years
is
is
only
53.
T
D
T
We're
not
talking
about
drastic
industrialization
here.
Is
there
activity?
You
bet,
you
drive
59,
and
you
see
that
absolutely
no
doubt
about
that.
That's
what
what
oil
and
gas
does
to
a
certain
extent,
but
let's
be
clear
about
what
what
what
the
actual
size
is.
T
The
other
thing
about
size
I
want
to
mention-
and
it's
probably
more
important-
is
the
type
of
projects
that
are
happening
now.
As
you
all
know,
in
oil
and
gas,
when
this
project
was
started
in
20
in
in
2014,
there
were
still
some
a
fair
number
of
vertical
Wells
happening
to
the
extent
that
there
were
horizontal
walls
happening.
There
are
one
mile
horizontals
at
this
point,
they're
nearly
exclusively
two
mile
horizontals
moving
to
Three
Mile
horizontals.
T
At
this
point,
it's
hard
to
overstate
what
that
has
meant
in
terms
of
reduced
impact
on
the
land
and
on
the
wildlife,
when
you
have
that
much
fewer
fewer
roads,
fewer
paths
and
and
a
lot
of
these
pads
now
are
doing
not
all
of
them,
but
a
lot
of
them
will
sit
on
a
section
and
they
will
drill
two
miles
in
each
Direction.
T
So
it's
not
the
less
surface
disturbance
is,
is
really
quite
dramatic.
In
fact,
I
think
I
might
even
have
a
little
bit
of
information
about
that.
T
I,
don't
think
I
can
I,
don't
have
the
actual
data
to
share
with
you
right
off
the
bat,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
know
that
it's
the
amount
of
production
that
Wyoming
receives
from
these
laterals
is
greater
than
it
continues
to
climb,
while
the
amount
of
surface
disturbance
continues
to
decline,
and
it
is
a
it
is
very
inversely
proportional,
okay,
Mr
chairman,
let's
move
on
to
more
important
things,
real
quick,
I
appreciate
your
your
patience
with
me
here
with
respect
to
Raptors
part
of
I
have
in
front
of
me
the
complaint
from
the
from
the
litigants
that
they
want
to
reverse
it
for
a
lot
of
reasons,
one
of
which
is
is
under
the
complaint.
T
Is
that
is
the
issue
of
Raptors
and
issue
of
sage
Grouse
in
particular,
and
so
I
wanted
to
talk
about
both
of
those
number
one
on
Raptors.
Just
to
remind
you
of
the
aeis
does
here,
there
are
approximately
a
thousand
nests
Raptor
nests
in
the
converse
Eis
area.
T
Not
all
of
them
are
necessarily
in
in
sort
of
different
stages,
but
there
are
approximately
a
thousand
nests.
A
thousand
nests
over
a
10-year
life
cycle
of
a
project
is
basically
10,
000
nesting
opportunities.
What
the
Eis
allows
for
is
is
98
exceptions
to
to
the
disturbance
rules,
essentially
for
Raptor
nests,
so
it's
essentially
a
one
percent
impact
over
the
life
and
during
this
time,
okay,
now
some
people
have
trouble
with
that.
That's
fine.
This
was
this
is,
and
this
is
a
unique,
a
unique
offering
in
this
particular
Eis.
T
T
One
exception:
each
year,
over
10
years
over
when
you're
talking
about
10
000
nesting
opportunities,
it
allows
for
operations
to
the
act,
the
active
part
of
operations
to
happen
when
there's
not
nesting,
when
there's
not
the
when
the
disturbance
is
not
a
problem,
and
then
we
reduce
the
activity
during
during
the
other
time,
look
much
fewer,
much
fewer
trucks,
much
fewer
roads,
much
fewer
fewer
human
interactions.
The
the
exception
process
was
put
in
place
not
solely
to
to
allow
for
production
to
be
more
streamlined.
T
Eis,
Sage,
Grouse,
I,
don't
think
Mr
Bud
is
still
here
or
he
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
this,
but
but
I
think
the
most
important
thing
to
remember
about
Sage
Grouse
is
there's
absolutely
nothing
in
the
CIS,
not
one
thing
in
the
Eis
that
changes
the
status
about
how
Sage
grass
are
dealt
with
from
the
2015
rmp,
nor
from
Wyoming's
executive
order
with
respect
to
Sage
grouse,
it's
not
different.
There's
no,
there's
no
new
exceptions.
There's
no
changes
in
any
way.
So
that's
the
important
thing
to
remember.
T
There's
there's!
You
know
some
talk
about
what
the
disturbance
already
is
out.
There
I
think
if
with
ground,
shooting
you'd,
probably
find
that
it's
right
around
three
percent
or
so
and
and
that
the
habitat
there
is
the
habitat
there
is
not
prime
Sage
Sage
Grouse
habitat
anyway,
but
that
the
activity
there
shows
that
it's
that
its
disturbances
is.
R
T
And
within
the
bounds
of
the
EO
foreign
with
water
and
with
air
quality,
I
think
the
important
thing
to
remember
with
water-
and
you
know
Mr
chairman-
that
that
the
water
uses
is
critical
and
that
some
of
these
projects
do
you
use
a
significant
amount
of
water.
I
think
what
you
will
find
as
this
project
moves
forward
is
dramatically
increased
use
of
recycled
water
in
these
projects.
T
I
think
that
is
going
to
that
is
going
to
exponentially
increase,
as
this
project
develops,
some
have
started
to
to
to
use
it
now,
and
it's
going
to
increase
as
we
go
on
on
air
quality.
Mr
chairman,
the
the
complaint
wants
DOI
and
BLM
to
have
the
legal
authority
to
impose
air
quality
controls
on
projects
extracting
Federal
oil
and
gas.
That,
of
course,
would
be
duplicative.
T
The
EPA
and
DEQ
already
have
that
and
are
quite
diligent
about
that
and
again
in
terms
of
Technology
advances
in
Wyoming
you're
going
to
see
that
continue
to
improve
and
improve
and
improve
last
thing,
I
want
to
say
Mr,
chairman
I'll.
Take
questions
is
I,
just
want
to
remind
you.
You
were
talking
about
sort
of
throwing
spaghetti
at
the
wall.
Sloppily
written
out
of
all
that
I'm,
not
an
attorney,
so
I
can't
speak
to
that.
T
But
I
can
speak
to
to
why
there
is
an
incentive
to
perhaps
throw
things
at
the
wall
like
this
and
that's
the
the
request
for
relief
in
the
which
I'll
just
read,
award
plaintiff's
costs
incurred
in
pursuing
this
action,
including
attorneys
fees
authorized
by
the
equal
access
to
Justice
act.
T
Mr
chairman
I
can
speak
to
it
because
in
the
decade
that
I
spent
on
Capitol
Hill
I
spent
that
entire
decade
trying
to
reform
the
equal
access
to
Justice
act.
Unfortunately,
the
best
we
were
able
to
do
was
actually
create
a
a
database,
a
searchable
database
on
on
how
much
money
goes
out
under
eja
and
who
gets
it.
So
just
to
remind
you,
it's
a
continuously
appropriated
fund
through
the
federal
government
that
was
passed
in
the
early
1980s.
T
It
was
intended
for
small
business
and
individuals
when
they
felt
they'd
been
aggrieved
by
the
federal
government
that
they
could
sue
the
federal
government
in
order
to
protect
their
interests.
There
are
various
sideboards
put
in
place
to
try
to
protect
the
taxpayer
from
having
to
pay
out
too
much
in
this
over
time.
The
litigious
environmental
Community
has
figured
out
basically
how
to
clear
away
all
those
hurdles.
T
Without
Really
any
trouble
at
all,
and
so
at
this
point,
based
on
the
settlement
agreements
that
Mr
mcgagna
talked
about
and
others
the
equal
assets
of
Justice
act,
money
is
available
to
environmental
litigants
and
are
they
are
awarded
oftentimes,
whether
they
win
lose
or
draw
on
the
merits
of
the
case,
and
so
there's
really.
No.
The
incentives
are
in
the
wrong
place
if
the
federal
government
is
in
fact
doing
something
wrong
on
the
on
the
merits
on
the
meat
of
the
esa
or
or
on
on
other
laws.
T
Of
course,
he
should
be
able
to
sue,
of
course,
but
what
what
this
does
is
basically
allow
repeated,
suits
over
and
over
again,
because
there's
no
there's
no
skin
in
that
game
and
you
can
recover
those
costs
oftentimes,
whether
you
Win
Lose
or
Draw,
on
the
merits
of
the
case,
so
is
what
it
is.
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
reform
that,
but
it
actually
exists
for
a
good
reason.
T
Think
about
your
veterans,
who
have
been
denied
their
veteran
claims
wrongly.
They
need
access
to
something
like
this,
but
it's
it's
being
used
in
my
opinion
wrongly
at
this
point
so
Mr
chairman
I'll,
leave
it
at
that
and
I'll
answer.
Any
of
the
questions
that
you
might
have
about
about
the
Eis
or.
B
Well,
thank
you
very
much
appreciate
your
testimony
and
your
perspective
and
your
hard
work
on
this
being
from
Commerce
County,
do
appreciate
your
industries,
engagement
and
the
work
that
we've
all
done
together
to
come
to
was
to
I
think
a
very
well
balanced
Eis
that
you
know
that
I
think
provides
common
sense
and
I.
B
Think
that
you
know
the
discussion
around
the
Raptors,
especially
that
you
know
reducing
or
getting
rid
of
the
Raptor
stipulations,
reduces
the
impact
on
the
land,
and
maybe
that's
counterintuitive,
if
you're
filing
a
suit
from
Idaho
or
for
somewhere
out
of
the
state,
and
hopefully
it's
not
too
counterintuitive.
If
you're
a
judge
sitting
on
a
DC,
Circuit
Court
we'll
find
out
so
I
think
all
that
stuff
is
really
important
and
to
be
clear,
I'm,
not
an
attorney
either,
but
when
I
say
sloppy,
it's
it's
from
my
perspective,
watching
that
development
happen
every
day.
B
B
Okay,
well,
I
appreciate
it
and
you
know
that,
along
the
lines
of
what
Mr
mcgagna
discussed
with
I,
guess,
November
17th
being
an
important
deadline
to
look
forward
to
hopefully
having
the
opportunity
to
intervene
in
this
case.
B
So
once
again,
thanks
for
all
your
work,
thanks
for
all
you
do
and
yeah
we'll
see
how
this
important
issue
evolves.
So
thank
you,
Mr,
chairman,
okay,
any
public
comment
looks
like
we
probably
don't
have
anything
online,
just
double
checking
any
members
of
the
public
here
present
today.
B
Okay,
well,
it
looks
like
we
don't
have
any
public
comment,
I've
prayed
for
I,
don't
think
we
need
any
particular
action
on
this
item
committee,
but
I
I'll
I'll
entertain
any
statements.
I
probably
have
one
of
my
own
if
nobody
else
does,
but
if
anybody
wants
to
say
something
or.
B
Well,
my
hey
I
just
point
out
that
you
know
it
was
a.
This
is
a
public
meeting
of
you
know:
I
didn't
necessarily
reach
out
to
the
folks
who
issued
the
lawsuit
but
I'm
disappointed
that
they're
not
here
either
they
could
have
been
here.
They're,
not
and
I.
Just
asked,
especially
the
power
of
a
based
in
recent
Horse
Council.
As
somebody
who
is
a
sixth
generation
Rancher
and
a
powerful
Basin
to
stop
identifying
themselves
as
a
landowner's
organization,
they
are
not.
B
They
are
radical
environmentalists
and
this
lawsuit
proves
that
this
is
a
keep
it
in
the
ground
lawsuit
where
they
are
actually
trying
to
stop
production
as
currently
occurring
and
that
whether
they
wanted
to
or
not
I
don't
know
if
they're,
just
incompetent
or
dishonest,
but
that's
the
effect
of
the
lawsuit.
If
it
goes
forward,
if
they're
successful,
somehow
so,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
abundantly
clear,
they
have
whatever
the
origins
of
the
organization
may
have
been
50
years
ago.
B
They
in
no
way
represent
actual
working
landowners
in
the
power
of
a
base,
and
they
are
every
bit
as
radical
as
Western
watersheds
or
you
know,
name
name.
Your
favorite
Environmental
Group
that
thinks
that
we
don't
need
fossil
fuels
at
all.
That's
what
my
interpretation
lawsuit
seems
to
to
reflect
that
perspective.
So
since
they're,
not
here,
I'll
just
make
a
general
public
comment
and
ask
them
to
stop
claiming
to
represent
landowners.
Say
do
not
so
any
further
discussion
well
stated.
B
Okay,
so
we
have
a
slight
adjustment
to
the
agenda.
I
hope
nobody
takes
too
much
offense.
So
we
did
have
a
discussion
with
the
County
Commissioners
last
meeting
about
Wildlife.
B
Excuse
me:
Wilderness
Area
study,
study
areas,
and
so
we
we
had
some
discussion
as
a
committee
sense
and
so
Mr
Raymond.
If
you
want
to
just
come
up
and
remind
us
of
what
the
ask
was
from
the
County
Commissioners,
and
maybe
we
could
reconsider
that
foreign.
I
Thank
you
Mr
chairman
again,
Jeremiah
Riemann
here
on
behalf
of
the
Wyoming
County
Commissioners
Association.
As
you
mentioned,
I
did
present
on
the
Wyoming
public
lands
initiative
after
past
meeting
and
in
particular,
was
interested
in
receiving
your
support
for
writing
a
letter
in
support
of
Senate
1750,
the
Wyoming
public
lands
initiative,
Act
of
2021.
That's
a
bill
that
Senator
barrasso
has
introduced.
I
I
So
committee,
the
federal
land
policy
management,
Act
of
1976,
required
the
BLM
to
inventory
Federal
lands
across
the
country
and
identify
those
areas
with
Wilderness
characteristics,
the
BLM
in
Wyoming
or
sorry
after
identifying
those
study
areas
flip
my
dictated
that
the
department
of
interior
should
either
recommend
to
Congress
designation
of
those
lands
as
Wilderness
or
release
them,
as
not
suitable
for
that
designation.
In
Wyoming,
the
BLM
issued
that
report
in
1991
and
in
the
state
they
recommended,
or
they
had
evaluated,
577
504
Acres
as
Wilderness
study
areas
of
that
amount.
I
I
I
2016
at
the
wcca
launched
the
Wyoming
public
lands
initiative
as
an
open
and
transparent
process
to
try
and
address
those
once
and
for
all
and
bring
a
legislative
package
from
Wyoming
to
Washington
D.C
to
make
a
decision
on
those
I'm
very
proud
of
what
the
organization
did
in
terms
of
that
process.
It
established
principles
and
guidelines
by
which
the
locally
produced
initiative
would
work
through
in
terms
of
of
getting
to
that
legislative
package,
each
of
the
23
counties
in
Wyoming
were
invited
to
participate
as
part
of
this
process.
However,
participation
was
entirely
discretionary.
I
They
had
that
choice,
not
every
County
did
participate,
but
many
that
did
and
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
each
one
of
those
counties
unless
you'd
like,
but
we
did
ask
that
counties
form
advisory
committees
make
made
up
of
the
various
stakeholders
with
an
interest
in
that
particular
area,
whether
that
be
agriculture
or
a
gas
coal,
whatever
the
resource
base
was
as
well
as
recreationists
and
others
that
might
be
of
of
the
environmental
perspective.
For
these
lands
site
visits
were
part
of
that
initiative
and
those
occurred
throughout
2016
through
2018.
I
Final
recommendations
were
Advanced
to
the
board
of
County
Commissioners
and
from
there
they
then
submitted
those
to
the
wcca
for
legislative
drafting
that
occurred
in
late
2018
and
2019,
working
in
particular
with
Senator
brasso's
office.
It's
a
complicated
process.
It
requires
working
with
the
BLM
at
both
the
state
and
federal
level
to
ensure
that
the
legislative
language
is
is
correct.
I
That
was
based
on
local
stakeholder
input
that
the
County
Commissioners
put
forward
and
that
again,
that
included
our
communities,
our
conservation
organizations,
outdoor
recreation
groups,
extractive
Industries
ranching
and
Agriculture
and
Wildlife
organizations
they
found
common
ground
on
the
area
is
that
are
included
in
that
particular
package
that
went
forward
and
we're
asking
for
your
support,
as
we
continue
to
advance
that
legislation
I'm
very
proud
to
say
that
in
June
we
did
have
a
hearing
before
the
before
the
Senate.
On
that
particular
legislation.
I
I
went
back
and
and
testified
on
that
I
submitted
my
testimony
to
all
of
you
at
the
past
meeting
just
a
couple
of
of
closing
things.
This
year
we
hosted
a
congressional
tour
throughout
the
Bighorn
Basin,
we're
pretty
proud
of
how
that
tour
went
representative
winter
joined
us
for
various
parts
of
that
trip.
I
think
he
could
share
his
perspectives.
I
We
had
10
Congressional
staffers
from
all
over
the
country
here,
50
Republican
50
percent
Democrat,
and
it
was
a
rather
remarkable
experience
of
introducing
them
to
how
we
work
these
various
lands
in
the
state.
I
How
we
address
issues
with
our
federal
partners
and
many
others
I
bring
it
up,
because
one
part
of
that
tour
was
a
visit
to
the
Cedar
Mountain
Wilderness
study
area,
which
crosses
the
border
of
Washakie
and
hot
springs
County,
and
we
had
a
Rancher
explain
some
of
the
difficulties
he
has
in
and
really
kind
of
the
perhaps
poor
job.
I
What
was
really
interesting
is
I
left
the
tour
the
next
day
it
had
one
portion
to
complete
up
the
western
side
of
the
base
in
there,
but
before
I
left
a
staffer
from
the
house,
natural
resource
committee
from
chairman
garavela's
staff,
who
is
the
Democrat
chair
right
now?
Certainly
that
could
change
here
upcoming.
But
he
pulled
me
aside
and
said:
hey
that
bill
will
have
to
go
through
our
committee.
I
I
was
rather
struck
by
what
I
saw
in
the
conversation
around
that
wsa
happy
to
provide
you
an
introduction
to
other
Democrat
staffers
on
that
legislation
and
see
if
we
can
make
any
positive
progress.
That's
the
sort
of
thing
we
were
hoping
would
come
out
of
the
Congressional
tour,
we'll
continue
to
do
that
for
the
next
few
years,
and
certainly
will
continue
to
invite
you
all,
but
we're
pretty
excited
about
the
legislation.
I
A
I
To
Mr
chairman,
that's
exactly
what
we're
looking
for
is
a
letter
of
support
for
the
legislation
to
our
Congressional
Delegation.
Obviously,
that's
going
to
change
on
the
house
side
this
year
and
we're
going
to
have
to
do
a
work
to
get
a
bill
introduced
on
the
house.
So
we
need
that
support
you
could,
in
addition
to
that,
address
it,
or
at
least
send
a
copy
to
the
relevant
committee
that
Senator
barrasso
co-chairs
and
we'd
appreciate
that.
K
Does
it
allow
certain
Wilderness
areas
to
become
permanent
Wilderness
areas?
Maybe
that
was
my
point
of
contention
and
left
some
others
that
didn't
become
Wilderness
areas.
I
think
that
was
it.
Is
that
correct.
I
Mr,
chairman
Senator
biteman,
you're,
you're
precise,
precisely
correct
this
bill
in
some
instances
will
designate
A
wilderness
based
on
the
process
that
was
followed.
There
are
a
couple
of
those
areas
in
Carbon,
County
and
portions
in
Fremont,
and
a
few
other
areas
of
the
state
they're
limited.
If
you
look
at
the
overall
amount
of
acreage,
that's
included
in
this
package,
and
certainly
that
was
As
I
understood
a
part
of
your
concern.
Just
to
that
point
again,
we
did
look
at
resource
potential
in
these
areas.
I
A
Mr,
chairman,
not
a
question,
maybe
if
I
could
make
a
brief
statement,
so
I
agree
with
senator
biteman
about
the
issue
of
more
Wilderness
areas.
However,
I
looked
at
it.
As
you
know,
this
was
a
decision
made
by
our
County
Commissioners,
who
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
it.
They
recommended
some
for
Wilderness.
They
recommended
some
for
not
and
one
particular
one.
B
P
Yes,
thank
you.
Mr
chairman,
my
concern
has
been
I,
mean
I'm
in
agreement
with
most
of
us
folks
that
we
don't
think
we
need
any.
We
need
any
more
Wilderness
areas
in
the
state
of
Wyoming,
but
in
order
to
enhance
our
use
of
the
the
land
that
has
been,
what
do
you
call
it
recommended
for
Wilderness
Area
and
it's
it's
not
really
part
of
it-
should
not
be
will
or
necessary
because
of
the
quality
that
we're
talking
about.
P
We
need
to
get
that
resolved
so
that
it
can
go
back
into
natural,
her
multiple
use
management.
So
that's
my
biggest
concern
that
we
get
something
done
with
this
whole
effort
to
at
least
resolve
the
the
matter
over
multiple
use
management
of
these
these
lands.
We
may
still
have
some
Wilderness
areas,
but
at
least
like
representative
Burkhardt
indicated
it
was
determined
by
our
County
agents
or
our
County
Commissioners,
and
we
should
support
them,
and
but
we
need
to
resolve
this
whole
issue
relative
to
multiple
use
management.
So
thank
you.
B
Okay,
any
further
public
comment:
we
have
a
former
County
Commissioner
director
here
so
feel
free
to
step
on
up.
T
Thank
you
Mr
chairman,
it's
unusual
for
me.
I!
Don't
actually
do
this,
but
I
just
have
a
lot
of
attachment
to
this
issue,
so
Pete,
obermuller
and
I'm
speaking
right
now,
just
as
myself,
not
in
my
in
my
current
professional
capacity,
I
just
wanted
to
address
the
issue
of
Big
W,
Wilderness
and
wsas.
T
The
Wilderness
study
area
was
always
intended
to
be
a
temporary
designation.
That
was
its
intent.
That's
what
it's
called
look
at
these
areas,
study
them
determine
whether
they
had
Wilderness.
It
should
be
Big,
W,
Willis
or
not,
and
then
let
either
declare
the
Wilderness
or
let
them
go
instead.
What
we've
had
now
is
over
40
years
of
this
limbo.
Designation
of
wsa
is
which
Senator
byman
have
been
managed
as
Wilderness
they're
de
facto
wilderness.
T
T
First,
new
Wilderness
since
1984.
and
the
association
that
supports
these
areas
opposes
the
bill.
You
have
to
ask
yourself
why,
because
they
don't
want
any
other
released,
they
love
the
de
facto
status
love
it.
What
was
awesome
about
the
about
the
wpli
project,
about
the
way
Mr
Riemann
has
Managed
IT?
Is
that
we
it
brought
everybody
to
the
table
and
tried
to
decide
well,
do
we
want
it
to
be
Wilderness
or
do
we
want
it
to
be?
T
Something
else
what
do
we
want,
because
it
sort
of
relates
back
to
a
lot
of
what
we've
been
talking
about
this
morning.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is
the
article
one
branch
of
government.
The
legislature
has
abdicated
its
Authority
to
the
agencies
and
what
was
unique
and
what
everyone
had
a
lot
of
trouble
wrapping
their
heads
around
Adobe
alive
was.
We
said,
you
know
what
none
of
us
need
to
go
ahead
in
hand
to
the
BLM
to
ask
about
these
areas.
We
can
write
a
bill.
We
can
have
the
article.
T
One
branch
actually
assert
their
Authority
for
once
and
and
say
Here's
how
we
want
it
to
do
it.
It's
how
we
want
to
do
it
in
Wyoming
and
we're
going
to
write
a
bill
that
does
that.
So
did
everybody
get
anything
that
everything
they
want?
No,
are
some
of
us
going
to
have
to
maybe
hold
our
nose
and
swallow
a
big
WWE
Wilderness
yup
we're
also
going
to
do
some
pretty
unique
cool
things
like
the
multiple
like
the
stuff
in
Fremont
County,
that
does
pretty
interesting,
Recreation
stuff
stuff
in
Washington
County.
T
That
does
some
pretty
unique
stuff
things
in
Johnson,
County
and
others
that
are
really
pretty
great.
Anyway,
Miss
chairman,
you
can
tell
I'm
very
attached
to
this
particular
issue
because
I
despise
the
wsa
policy,
it's
it's
terrible
policy
and
we
need
to
you
know
what
or
get
off
the
pot
on
it.
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
I,
appreciate
your.
B
All
thinking
that
thank
you
for
saying
it,
sir.
Okay,
any
further
public
comment
and
if
you're
online
just
feel
free
to
raise
your
hand.
I
know
this
wasn't
necessarily
scheduled
ahead
of
time.
So
if
we
have
none,
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
public
comment
committee,
what's
your
pleasure,
Mr
chairman
Mr.
A
Chairman
I
would
propose
that
the
committee
sent
a
letter
to
our
Congressional
Delegation,
supporting
that
bill.
B
B
Okay,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
aye,
oh
say
no
motion
carries
all
right.
Well,
thank
you,
everybody.
That
brings
us
to
our
lunch
break.
We
have
to
be
back
at
1,
30
sharp.
We
have
somebody
zooming
in
from
Washington
and
yeah,
we'll
be
reconvened
at
1
30..
Thank
you.