[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3815, H.R. 4141 AND H.R. 4620
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
June 6, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-123
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
-------
80-063 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, RECREATION, AND PUBLIC LANDS
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California, Chairman
DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands Ranking Democrat Member
Elton Gallegly, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Joel Hefley, Colorado Samoa
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Tom Udall, New Mexico
Carolina, Mark Udall, Colorado
Vice Chairman Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mac Thornberry, Texas Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Chris Cannon, Utah Hilda L. Solis, California
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Jim Gibbons, Nevada
Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 6, 2002..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
Virgin Islands............................................. 2
Doolittle, Hon. John T., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, Prepared statement on H.R. 4620... 55
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 4141.......................... 11
Maps submitted for the record............................ 94
Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 9
Otter, Hon. C.L. ``Butch'', a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho......................................... 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 5
Radanovich, Hon. George P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 1
Prepared statement on H.R. 3815, H.R. 4141 and H.R. 4620. 2
Ross, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 13
Prepared statement on H.R. 3815.......................... 16
Letter from President Bill Clinton submitted for the
record................................................. 15
Statement of Witnesses:
Altenbaumer, Crystal, Executive Director, William Jefferson
Clinton Birthplace Home, Hope, Arkansas.................... 80
Prepared statement on H.R. 3815.......................... 81
Barry, Donald J., Executive Vice-President, The Wilderness
Society, Washington, D.C................................... 44
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 46
Finfer, Larry, Assistant Director for Communications, Bureau
of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C............................................ 58
Prepared statement on H.R. 4141.......................... 59
Hatfield, Nina Rose, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget and
Finance, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.................................. 17
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 18
Johnson, Randy G., Commissioner, Emery County, Castle Dale,
Utah....................................................... 28
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 30
Johnson, Rick, Executive Director, Idaho Conservation League,
Boise, Idaho............................................... 40
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 42
Kimbell, Abigail, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C............................................ 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 20
Salove, Chris, Commissioner, Owyhee County, Marsing, Idaho... 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 33
Smith, Daniel P., Special Assistant to the Director, National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C........................................................ 56
Prepared statement on H.R. 3815.......................... 57
Thompson, Douglas L., Chairman, Wyoming Rancher and Freemont
County Commissioner, Representing the National Public Lands
Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association,
Lander, Wyoming............................................ 37
Prepared statement on H.R. 4620.......................... 38
Van Epp, Daniel, President, The Howard Hughes Corporation,
Las Vegas, Nevada.......................................... 61
Prepared statement on H.R. 4141.......................... 63
Additional materials supplied:
Reilly, Thom, Clark County Manager, Clark County, Nevada,
Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 4141............ 12
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3815, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF THE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF
ESTABLISHING A PRESIDENTIAL NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE IN HOPE, ARKANSAS,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 4141, TO AUTHORIZE THE ACQUISITION BY
EXCHANGE OF LANDS FOR INCLUSION IN THE RED ROCK CANYON NATIONAL
CONSERVATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND
H.R. 4620, TO ACCELERATE THE WILDERNESS DESIGNATION PROCESS BY
ESTABLISHING A TIMETABLE FOR THE COMPLETION OF WILDERNESS STUDIES ON
FEDERAL LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
----------
Thursday, June 6, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. George
Radanovich [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Good afternoon. This hearing will come to
order. This afternoon this Subcommittee will hear testimony on
three bills H.R. 3815, H.R. 4141, and H.R. 4620. The first
bill, H.R. 3815, introduced by Representative Mike Ross, would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a survey of
the suitability and feasibility of establishing a Presidential
National Historic Site in Hope, Arkansas, birthplace of the
former President, William Jefferson Clinton.
The next bill, H.R. 4141, introduced by our Subcommittee
colleague, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, would authorize the
acquisition by exchange of lands for inclusion into the Red
Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Clark County, Nevada.
The bill would also authorize the transfer of certain other BLM
lands to Clark County for a county park.
Our last bill is H.R. 4620, introduced by our Committee
colleague, Butch Otter, which would accelerate the wilderness
designation process by establishing a timetable for the
completion of wilderness studies on Federal lands.
Before turning the time over to Ms. Christensen, I would
ask unanimous consent that Mr. Ross be allowed to sit on the
dais following his statement. Without objection, so ordered.
And I now turn to the Ranking Member, Mrs. Christensen, for
any opening statement that she may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Statement of The Honorable George P. Radanovich, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Good afternoon. The hearing will come to order. This afternoon the
Subcommittee will hear testimony on three bills, H.R. 3815, H.R. 4141,
and H.R. 4620.
The first bill, H.R. 3815, introduced by Representative Mike Ross,
would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a survey of
the suitability and feasibility of establishing a Presidential National
Historic Site in Hope, Arkansas, birthplace of former President William
Jefferson Clinton.
The next bill, H.R. 4141, introduced by our Subcommittee Colleague,
Jim Gibbons of Nevada, would authorize the acquisition by exchange of
lands for inclusion in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area,
Clark County, Nevada. The bill would also authorize the transfer of
certain other BLM lands to Clark County for a county park.
Our last bill, H.R. 4620 introduced by our Committee Colleague,
Butch Otter, would accelerate the Wilderness designation process by
establishing a timetable for the completion of wilderness studies on
Federal Lands.
Before turning the time over to Mrs. Christensen, I would ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Ross be allowed to sit on the dais following
his statement. Without objection [PAUSE], so ordered.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, as you
said, the Subcommittee is going to consider three bills,
unrelated bills. The first one is H.R. 3815, introduced by our
colleague, Representative Mike Ross. It is a noncontroversial
measure to authorize a study on the suitability and feasibility
of designating the William Jefferson Clinton birthplace home,
located in Hope, Arkansas, as a national historic site. The
site was the home of the future 42nd President from his birth
in 1946 to 1950. It is closely identified with his youth and
early development.
I would also note that H.R. 3815 is supported by the entire
Arkansas delegation, as it is by me as well, and also has the
support of State and local officials. I want to congratulate my
colleague, Mike Ross, for his work on this bill.
Our second measure, H.R. 4141, introduced by Representative
Gibbons, I have a little more difficulty supporting because it
raises a number of troubling concerns. Land exchanges in Las
Vegas have been controversial, and this proposal is no
exception. In fact, land exchanges in Las Vegas have been such
a problem that Congress in 1998 enacted Public Law 105-263 to
halt land exchanges in this area and instead directed public
lands be disposed of by auction, with the proceeds earmarked to
the acquisition of conservation and recreational lands in
Nevada.
H.R. 4141 overturns that policy in this instance and
attempts to resurrect past problems with land exchanges. The
legislation deems the lands to be exchanged to be of equal
value with no qualified appraisals having been done yet. It
waives environmental laws. In fact, the bill stipulates that
the exchange does not require further consideration or action
pursuant to any other law or Executive order.
The lands that are proposed to be exchanged have been
altered several times over the years, and we have yet to
receive an accurate mapping acreage figure for those lands.
With public land sales in Las Vegas averaging $44,770 per acre
for large parcels and $116,004 per acre for small parcels,
these lands represent a significant economic resource.
So, Mr. Chairman, given these issues and questions, I
believe that the Subcommittee will need to look closely at the
legislation. But I have had a chance to sit down with
Congresswoman Berkeley who represents this district. She has
come over to the office with some of her staff, and they have
assured me that they are willing to work out some of the areas
we have concern about. So I hope that we will be able to do
that before the bill comes to the floor through the full
Committee.
Our final bill, H.R. 4620, is perhaps even more
controversial. This legislation is similar to a bill sponsored
by Chairman Hansen in the last Congress which the Republican
leadership declined to move to the House floor. The legislation
delegates current congressional authority over wilderness study
areas to the executive branch by granting the Secretaries of
the Interior and Agriculture vast new power to abolish such
designations. Furthermore, for those areas the secretary fails
to abolish, the bill creates an arbitrary 10-year time limit
after which these areas would lose their designations.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a fundamental
misunderstanding of what a wilderness is, of what wilderness
is, and we oppose it. The process of determining whether an
area is suitable for wilderness designation is difficult and
time consuming, involving the assessment of complex resource
issues.
The date of the area's designation as a WSA, however, is
not one of the relevant issues. The passage of days on the
calendar in no way alters the wilderness characteristics of an
area and should not in any way be a factor. While the process
is a difficult one, we feel strongly that Congress should
continue its work on wilderness and avoid the temptation to
abdicate our responsibilities to the executive branch or rely
on an arbitrary strategy to let the clock run out on existing
WSAs.
And I want take this opportunity to thank our witnesses for
their time and effort and look forward to the testimony.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Donna. Are there any
other opening statements from anybody else on the panel
regarding those three bills?
If not, then we will go to our first panelist who is The
Honorable Butch Otter from the First District of Idaho, here to
speak on H.R. 4620.
Mr. Radanovich. Butch, welcome to the panel.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Otter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
thank you for holding this hearing today and for inviting me
not only to attend the meeting but also to join you at the
dais.
I recently introduced H.R. 4620, the American's Wilderness
Protection Act. Its goal is to resolve what in most cases has
become a decade-long process of deliberating the fate of
wilderness study areas, millions of acres of public land made
untouchable for multiple use while Federal agencies and
Congress consider whether they warrant permanent wilderness
status.
My bill, sponsored by 33 fellow Congressmen, including many
on this Committee, would release all areas designated as
wilderness study areas from such status on the earlier of 10
years after this Act becomes law, the date that the area is
designated as wilderness by an act of Congress, or the date the
Secretary of Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture
determines that the area is unsuitable for wilderness
designation. Wilderness study areas released from the
designation would revert back to their previous use.
Currently, environmental obstructionists have no incentive
to help reach decisions on wilderness designations that might
give them less than what they want. To a large degree, they
already have their victory. The status quo guarantees all study
areas to be continued and to be treated as wilderness areas.
Despite officially making allowances for historical uses,
land managers understandably err on the side of caution and set
rules maintaining wilderness values, restricting access to
natural resources that might help restore jobs in rural
communities.
Many of our rural communities have been in limbo for too
long. In Idaho, for example, there are 86 wilderness study
areas totaling 3.1 million acres. Of the 67 Bureau of Land
Management parcels, 63 have been locked up as de facto
wilderness since 1981 or 1982, even though 40 of them have been
found unsuitable for wilderness protection. The other 4 have
been withdrawn from multiple use since 1976.
Most of the 19 Forest Service wilderness study areas have
been in place since the mid-1980's, and 2 have been held in
that status since 1972, all the while through the
administrations of seven Presidents and during the lifetime of
many working people in Idaho, there has been no requirement on
the part of the government nor impetus for the obstructionists
to fish or cut bait.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Federal Lands Policy and
Management Act of 1976 created the wilderness study area
concept. The lands that became wilderness study areas were to
be studied to determine whether they qualified for wilderness
designation. Unfortunately, these laws failed to provide for
the release of those lands when the studies were complete.
Absent congressional action or consensus among the stakeholders
on setting aside a specific parcel, that has caused wilderness
study areas to be studied into perpetuity even after the actual
studies were finished.
The perpetual study of an area of wilderness for
suitability is clearly not in the public interest. The American
Wilderness Protection Act will bring some closure to the
wilderness study area. If an area is truly worthy of the
wilderness label, Congress should designate it as such. But if
Congress can't support such a designation, then how can we
support continuing to have the land locked away from active
management?
With this act's 10-year buffer and the 20 to 30 years that
so many of these areas have already spent in limbo, we are
talking about a generation during which people have been
essentially barred from the use of some of the most valuable
opportunities to recreate, to improve habitat and watersheds,
protect against disease, insect infestation, invasive and
noxious weeds, and other beneficial uses of our national
resource.
I believe this legislation is an important effort to raise
the level of debate on wilderness, promote resolution, and hold
everyone involved accountable for the outcome. Idaho's rural
communities and rural communities across the West need
certainty and self-determination for managing their natural
resources and improving their economies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing the
testimony and the insight of our witnesses on this legislation.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Otter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Otter follows:]
Statement of The Honorable C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today and inviting
me to attend.
I recently introduced H.R. 4620, the America's Wilderness
Protection Act. Its goal is to resolve what in most cases has become a
decades-long process of deliberating the fate of ``wilderness study
areas''--millions of acres of public land made untouchable for multiple
use while Federal agencies and Congress consider whether they warrant
permanent wilderness status.
My bill, cosponsored by 33 fellow Congressmen including many
members of this Committee, would release all areas designated as
wilderness study areas from such status on the earlier of 10 years
after this Act becomes law, the date the area is designated as
wilderness by act of Congress or the date that the Secretary of
Interior or Agriculture determines that the area is unsuitable for
wilderness designation. Wilderness Study Areas released from the
designation would revert back to their previous use.
Currently, environmental obstructionists have no incentive to help
reach decisions on wilderness designations that might give them less
than they want. To a large degree, they already have their victory. The
status quo guarantees all the study areas continue to be treated as
wilderness.
Despite officially making allowances for historical uses, land
managers understandably err on the side of caution and set rules
maintaining ``wilderness values,'' restricting access to natural
resources that might help restore jobs in rural communities.
Many of our rural communities have been in limbo too long. In
Idaho, for example, there are 86 wilderness study areas totaling about
3.1 million acres. Of the 67 Bureau of Land Management parcels, 63 have
been locked up as de facto wilderness since 1981 or 1982--even though
40 of them have been found unsuitable for wilderness protection. The
other four have been withdrawn from multiple use since 1976.
Most of the 19 Forest Service wilderness study areas have been in
place since the mid-1980s and two have held that status since 1972. All
the while--through the administration of seven presidents and during
the entire lifetime of many working people in Idaho--there has been no
requirement on the government nor impetus for obstructionists to fish
or cut bait.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 and the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 created the ``Wilderness Study Area'' concept.
Lands that became Wilderness Study Areas were to be studied to
determine whether they qualified for wilderness designation.
Unfortunately, these laws failed to provide for the release of those
lands when the studies were complete. Absent congressional action or
consensus among stakeholders on setting aside a specific parcel, that's
caused Wilderness Study Areas to be studied in perpetuity--even after
the actual studies were finished.
The perpetual study of an area for wilderness suitability is
clearly not in the public interest. The Americas Wilderness Protection
Act will bring some closure to Wilderness Study Areas. If an area is
truly worthy of the wilderness label, Congress should designate it as
such. But if Congress can't support such a designation, how then can we
support continuing to have that land locked away from active
management?
With this act's 10-year buffer and the 20 to 30 years that so many
of these areas already have spent in limbo, we're talking about a
generation during which people will have been essentially barred from
some of our most valuable opportunities to recreate, improve habitat
and watersheds, protect against diseases and insect infestation, and
other beneficial uses of our natural resources. I believe this
legislation is an important effort to raise the level of debate on
wilderness, promote resolution and hold everyone involved accountable
for the outcome. Idaho's rural communities, and rural communities
across the West, need certainty and self-determination for managing
their natural resources and improving their economies.
Thank you again Mr. Chairman and I look forward to hearing the
testimony and insight of our witnesses.
______
Mr. Radanovich. The Chair will recognize the Chairman of
the Resources Committee, Mr. Hansen; then Mr. Gibbons to speak
on his bill, and Mr. Ross. Mr. Hansen.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for hearing
from me at this particular time. I have to leave, but I did
want to speak to this bill because I think there are some
really tremendous misunderstandings that are going on, as Mr.
Otter pointed out, on the process.
The 1964 Wilderness Act called for the Forest Service and
for the Park Service to do a study, and in 1975 we got the
FLPMA Act that brought in the BLM. How does this work? They are
supposed to take that Agency and they are supposed to do a
study. They do the study, they submit it to Congress, and
supposedly only Congress can then make wilderness.
What has happened? Of all of the studies that have been
done--I have been around here for 22 years and been a part of a
lot of these things--the Agency has not followed one of them.
Not one time. So we find ourselves in a situation where why do
we spend these millions and millions of dollars to have these
agencies do it when Congress won't follow it? And basically
what happens is we just have a situation where nothing occurs.
Now, in my 22 years as a Member of Congress and as Chairman
of this full Committee, I think that the one thing that bothers
me the very most is all of the attorney retirement acts that we
do around here. Every time something happens, we do another
thing to take care of our legal friends somewhere, and they do
very, very well. And we have got more attorney retirement acts
than we have ever seen.
Now, what the gentleman from Idaho is trying to do is stop
the ``wilderness retirement act,'' because on that little word
``wilderness,'' it is a romantic word. If I went around here
and said, all of you folks give me your definition of
wilderness, or, better yet, what do you envision when your hear
the word, I envision being up in the hills and smelling the
pines and the aspens and the clear water--and good people. And
that is what I envision. And so it is a very positive, romantic
word.
Now, if I said, give me what you envision in severely
restricted areas, that is a negative way of putting it. But you
know what, folks, they are synonyms, they are exactly the same.
When we did the 1984 bill of wilderness in the State of Utah,
we had our phones ringing off the hook with people saying, gee,
I can hardly wait to take my RV and get up there and get the
job done and go in and see it. You don't go in there, because
it says nothing mechanized shall go in that area.
Now you tell me, what is mechanized? Is a camp stove
mechanized? Is an oar lock mechanized? But you can't take a
mechanized thing in there. So we in effect have said, this is a
real reserve, pristine, primitive area.
Now, another thing that I have noticed about this Act is
what constitutes and qualifies as wilderness. Does just a piece
of sage brush qualify as wilderness? I was recently working
with Larry Young of the Southern Utah Wilderness Association,
and the question came up; he wanted another 10,000 acres of
pure sagebrush, pure unadulterated, all there is sage brush and
a few beer cans in it. And he said he wanted that. I said, why?
It doesn't qualify as wilderness. It is only sagebrush. It is
something like the Grand Staircase-Escalante that President
Clinton did.
I don't know where there is anything in there that
qualifies as a monument. And, of course, as we subpoenaed the
papers, we found out they believed that, too. They said in
there, we all are doing this to pacify the extreme whackos--
whoever they are--I have never tried to figure that one out.
But, anyway, we get the idea. And let me just ask you,
folks. Up here most of us have served in a legislative body
other than this one, haven't we? Didn't you come out of the
legislature? Didn't you? I came out of the legislature. I was
Speaker of the House. Butch was Lieutenant Governor. Jim held a
leadership position. We are all in those areas. And guess what?
If you go look in our legislative bodies, you know what you are
you going to find? You are going to find that most of the
bills--now I am emphasizing most of the bills--have a sunset on
them. And why do they do that? We don't want them to go forever
and ever and ever. We want them to stop somewhere. We want a
chance to take another look at it.
Now here, if you look at the 1964 Wilderness Act, we are
going to have the Agency take it. Now, I think Mr. Otter's bill
kind of reads this way: The Agency finishes their investigation
and they make the suggestion to Congress. And then Congress has
10 years from that point when it starts tolling; is that
correct, Mr. Otter?
You are supposed to say yes. If you would read your script
we could get this show on the road.
Mr. Otter. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hansen. Carrying that on, we get down to the point that
the thing starts to toll. And they have got 10 years. Now, tell
me, why is it so difficult--because regardless of the arguments
you are going to hear, it is not the time that they are
investigating, it is the time after they have made their
proposal to Congress. So you got 10 long years to adjudicate
this thing. Tell me--I wish I could stay, Mr. Chairman, because
I want to hear the answers of why you can't get it done in 10
years.
There are very few things I have seen in 42 years as an
elected official that you can't get done in 10 years. So why
are people opposing this idea of Mr. Otter's? They are opposing
it because they want it to continue forever and ever, because
that word ``wilderness'' is an entire industry today. Look at
the clubs that have started. They built the whole thing on that
romantic thing, wilderness. And if you keep it going and going
and going, you are fine.
Now, let my give you an example of that. They finished the
thing on BLM wilderness in the State of Utah way back in 1990.
Jim Parker was the head of the BLM for the State of Utah. He
took this thing that took 15 years and $10 million of your
taxpaying money and he made a determination. He said, all
right, the State of Utah has 22 million acres of BLM. We said,
the very most you would ever have is 3.2, but we wouldn't give
you all of that, we will give 1.95. That is the thing. These
people walked around with a little button that said 3.2 for a
long time.
Well, we didn't do 3.2. Then it went up to 5.7. That was
the rallying cry when a fellow by the name of Wayne Owens sat
here and could have got it through if he wanted, but he didn't
really want to. As we know, and Wayne has said, they had the
Democrats in both the House the Senate and the President, and
they didn't even introduce the thing. And I was the Ranking
Member of this Committee in those days.
So then Bruce Babbitt came along, if you were there when
Bruce and I had a swearing match, and he decided he was going
to do a reinventory. So he walked out of here. And instead of
15 long years and $10 million, they did it in 3 weeks with kids
from BYU, Utah State, and others. They went out and said this
is pretty, that is pretty, the other is pretty. Guess what they
came up with? 5.7 million acres, exactly what they had been
carrying around on those little badges all of those years,
right on the button. Hardly the ink was dry on that.
Guess what? They then wanted 9.1. Now it is 9.3. I called
one of them and said, ``What if we gave you the 9.3?`` ``I want
12.5.'' what if we gave you 12.5 and half of the Forest Service
and all of the parks?
So now really what are you telling me when you are saying
that to me, Mr. Environmentalist? You are saying to me, you are
saying I don't want to settle this thing, because if I settle
this thing, my industry extinguishes. You better get to
something else.
It is kind of like Marlboro, you know. If we get rid of
cigarettes, you guys don't kill yourself puffing on the damned
things; do you know what you are going to find? They are going
to go into cheese and into something else.
So that is what you folks in the wilderness area ought to
do, get into something else, because you are obviously in a
place where you can't keep this going forever.
So all he is doing is doing what we have done in the
legislature, what we have done here. I wish I had brought a
list of all of the bills that we have put a sunset on, of which
there are hundreds. That is all we are asking is get it done.
So what is the emphasis? What is the incentive to get it
done? It is a time limit. And that is why since our Founding
Fathers put this show together, they put sunsets on bills, to
get the job done.
So if you oppose this, you are in effect buying into that
argument we really don't want to settle this thing, because if
we settle it, what are we going to do to make money now? I just
say, I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. I think
you have done a fantastic job and you even read your lines
right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. That means we will put you down
as neutral on that bill.
Statement of The Honorable James V. Hansen, Chairman, Committee on
Resources
I've served in this body for 22 years. Throughout that time, I've
taken part in hundreds of hearings, read countless pages of testimony,
and have met with thousands of Americans expressing their views on
public policy. I can say from experience that few issues create as much
controversy, divisiveness, and frustration as wilderness does.
This is a result of many factors. Some people consider the
Wilderness Act of 1964 to be a sacred writ and oppose any attempt to
improve it. Others formed special interest groups based on a philosophy
of wilderness. These people prefer to continue to increase their
wilderness proposals each year by hundreds of thousands of acres that
do not fit the definition of wilderness, rather than coming to the
table to resolve the issue. Others object to any wilderness designation
at all. But I believe that most of the controversy and contention is a
result of agencies or individuals departing from the original intent of
the Wilderness Act.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 vests the duty of designating wilderness
areas on public lands solely with the Congress. Although Federal
agencies may recommend areas that may be suitable for wilderness
designation--and are even required to do so--they cannot create
wilderness areas. Notwithstanding this fact, the agencies'' ability to
designate Wilderness Study Areas allows them to bypass Congressional
processes and create de facto wilderness areas. Even though Congress
has not approved these areas as wilderness, they are being managed as
though they were and, under current law, may continue to be managed as
wilderness for perpetuity unless Congress directs them to do otherwise.
Agency-made wilderness was not the intent of Congress when it passed
the Wilderness Act in 1964, and it should not be now.
Let me illustrate this with an example. In my home state of Utah,
approximately 3.2 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management are Wilderness Study Areas. These WSAs have been around now
for more than two decades, waiting for Congress to act on the BLM's
recommendation of 1.9 million acres. As I stated earlier, wilderness is
always a controversial subject. Trying to pass legislation that would
designate those lands that deserve it and release those that do not has
been very difficult. The result is that the State of Utah has 3.2
million acres of WSAs as de-facto wilderness.
But that's not where the problem stops. Special interest groups
have lobbied the agencies to manage additional areas as wilderness.
Without Congressional approval, the agencies have done just that, and
in Utah, that makes between 5.7 and 9.1 million acres de-facto
wilderness.
This legislation would help to alleviate problems like this. It
would require Congress to act within 10 years of the designation of the
Wilderness Study Area. It would give an incentive to all sides to come
to the table to negotiate and come to a resolution.
Another result of this legislation would be the avoidance of
perpetual studies for wilderness characteristics on public lands. I
know that in Utah, the lands have been studied to death. This
legislation would make allow the Federal agencies to devote more of
their time and resources to other pressing management needs. It will
revert the public land to the use status that it had immediately before
becoming a WSA.
Most importantly, it allows Congress decide what is and is not
wilderness, based on the recommendations of the Federal agencies. This
was the original intent of the Wilderness Act.
This is a good piece of legislation. I appreciate the Chairman
considering it today and look forward to hearing the panel's remarks.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Next up to speak on his bill, H.R. 4141, is
Subcommittee colleague, Jim Gibbons of Nevada.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And there
is a line in ``When Harry Met Sally'' where they are sitting at
a restaurant, and ``I want some of what she is having.''
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for considering H.R.
4141, the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Protection
and Enhancement Act of 2002. Mr. Chairman, a bill previously
referenced by our colleague, Mrs. Green, was considered by this
Congress years ago, called the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act of 1998, which was enacted to provide for the
orderly disposal of Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada, and
to provide the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands
in the State.
Now, pursuant to these goals and to those of the Recreation
and Public Purposes Act, on April 10th of this year I
introduced this important piece of legislation to further
enhance the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
H.R. 4141 will promulgate the exchange of approximately
1,000 acres of private land, environmentally sensitive land,
and mountainous land on the eastern border of the Red Rock
National Conservation Area, held by the Howard Hughes
Corporation, for approximately 1,000 acres of Bureau of Land
Management lands. In addition, approximately 1,200 acres of BLM
lands will be transferred to Clark County to be used as a
public park. This exchange is fully consistent with the
objectives of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act,
P.L. 105-203, an Act to dispose of developable Federal lands
which are currently on BLM's disposal list in exchange for
those that are environmentally sensitive.
The land to be conveyed to the BLM by the Howard Hughes
Corporation has archeological, scenic and recreational values.
The public lands to be acquired by the Hughes Corporation in
exchange are adjacent to the Hughes Corporation holdings and
lie within the disposal boundaries identified by the Southern
Nevada Public Land Management Act for development.
Mr. Chairman, as you know Congress recognized the benefits
of convening lands to local governments without compensation
for recreational purposes when it passed the Recreation in
Public Purposes Act of 1954. The transfer of approximately
1,200 acres to Clark County to be used as a park or part of a
trial system meets with the objectives of the Recreation and
Public Purposes Act as well as the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act.
H.R. 4141 is a bill that has the support of both Nevada's
Senators, Democratic Senator Harry Reid, and Republican Senator
John Ensign, as well as the local governments in the area.
Further, the Howard Hughes Corporation deserves praise for
its advocacy of an exchange that not only benefits their
development interest but also those of the local public.
The Las Vegas City Council passed a resolution on February
20th of this year supporting preservation of Spring Mountain
viewsheds through incorporation into the Red Rock Canyon NCA.
Further, the Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club stated in
a letter to the Howard Hughes Corporation that H.R. 4141 is not
a bill that they want to oppose, and that the positive gains
for the public holdings makes it a bill to celebrate.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the
record testimony from Clark County Manager Tom Riley endorsing
this legislation. Along with the citizens of Clark County
Nevada, we look forward to further consideration of this
legislation which blends development and conservation interests
into a wise and sensible solution for Red Rock Canyon.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for working this bill into
your Subcommittee's very busy schedule. I hope to gain your
support in moving this bill in the near future. I would be
happy to address any questions the Committee or others may
have.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada
Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering H.R. 4141--the Red Rock
Canyon National Conservation Area Protection and Enhancement Act of
2002.
A previous bill considered by this Congress, the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act of 1998, was enacted to provide for the
orderly disposal of Federal lands in Clark County, Nevada and to
provide for the acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands in the
State.
Pursuant to these goals, and to those of the Recreation and Public
Purposes Act, on April 10th of this year, I introduced this important
piece of legislation to further enhance the Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area.
H.R. 4141 will promulgate the exchange of approximately 1000 acres
of private, environmentally sensitive, mountainous land on the eastern
border of the Red Rocks National Conservation Area held by The Howard
Hughes Corporation for approximately 1000 acres of Bureau of Land
Management lands.
In addition, approximately 1200 acres of BLM land will be
transferred to Clark County to be used as a public park.
The exchange is fully consistent with the objectives of the
Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act to dispose developable
Federal lands in exchange for those that are environmentally sensitive.
The land to be conveyed to the BLM by The Howard Hughes Corporation
has archaeological, scenic, and recreational values.
The public lands to be acquired by The Howard Hughes Corporation
are adjacent to Hughes corporate land holdings and lie within the
disposal boundaries identified by the Southern Nevada Public Land
Management Act for development.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, Congress recognized the benefit of
conveying Federal lands to local governments without compensation for
recreation purposes when it passed the Recreation and Public Purposes
Act of 1954.
The transfer of approximately 1200 acres to Clark County to be used
as a park or part of a trail system meets with the objectives of the
Recreation and Public Purposes Act as well as the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act.
H.R. 4141 is a non-controversial bill that has the support of both
of Nevada's Senators, and local government.
Further, the Howard Hughes Corporation deserves praise for its
advocacy of an exchange that not only benefits their development
interests but also those of the local public.
The Las Vegas City Council passed a resolution on February 20th of
this year supporting ``preservation'' of Spring Mountain viewsheds
through incorporation into the Red Rock Canyon NCA.
Further, the Southern Nevada Group of the Sierra Club stated in a
letter to The Howard Hughes Corporation that H.R. 4141 is not a bill
they ``want to oppose'' and that the positive gain for public holdings
makes it a ``bill to celebrate''.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record,
testimony from Clark County Manager Thom Reilly, endorsing this
legislation.
Along with the citizens of Clark County, Nevada, we look forward to
further consideration of this legislation which blends development and
conservation interests into a wise and sensible solution for Red Rock
Canyon.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for working this bill into your
Subcommittee's very busy schedule--and I hope to gain your support in
moving this bill in the near future.
I will be happy to address any of the Committee's concerns.
______
[The statement submitted for the record on H.R. 4141 from
Thom Reilly, Clark County Manager, Clark County, Nevada,
follows:]
Statement of Thom Reilly, Clark County Manager, Clark County, Nevada
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on H.R. 4141, a
bill to authorize the acquisition by exchange of land for inclusion in
the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area, Clark County, Nevada.
Howard Hughes Corporation owns property and is developing the
Summerlin Master Planned Community immediately adjacent to the Red Rock
Canyon National Conservation Area administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. The lands being offered by Howard Hughes Corporation,
totaling 1071 acres, would be incorporated into the Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area.
Inclusion of the lands in the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area will preserve the viewsheds of the Spring Mountains from the Las
Vegas Valley and natural drainage ways. It will also provide improved
public access to the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area,
resulting in significant public benefits.
Howard Hughes Corporation has selected 998 acres within the Bureau
of Land Management disposal boundary for the Las Vegas Valley that it
considers suitable for exchange for the lands being offered. An
additional 1250 acres of public lands, also within the Bureau of Land
Management disposal boundary, would be conveyed to Clark County for
public parks and trails to be administered by the Parks and Community
Services Department.
The majority of this land being conveyed to Clark County is
currently identified as open space and part of the regional trail
system in Clark County's Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2000-2020.
Steep slopes, view sheds from the urban
Las Vegas Valley, and important cultural and biological resources
best characterize the area.
Clark County will construct trails and trailheads within this open
space, through Federal-local partnerships, at an estimated cost of
$5,000,000. It is Clark County's intent to link portions of the Old
Mormon/Spanish Trail with the regional trails system through these
constructed trails.
Clark County understands that the lands conveyed would be subject
to valid existing rights as identified in Section 6 (b) of the Bill. To
that end Clark County has met with the owners of mining claims and will
continue to work with them as they pursue their rights.
In summary, H.R. 4141 will preserve the viewsheds of the Spring
Mountains from the Las Vegas Valley; it will provide improved public
access to the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area; and it will
result in significant public benefits to the residents and visitors of
Clark County, Nevada. This is important and meaningful legislation and
Clark County, Nevada supports its passage. To this end the Clark County
Board of County Commissioners passed the attached Resolution in support
of H.R. 4141.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
______
Clark County, Nevada Resolution Supporting the Exchange of Selected
Lands Between the United States Bureau of Land Management and Howard
Hughes Properties, Inc.
WHEREAS, Howard Hughes Properties, Inc. (HUGHES) owns property along
the western and northern boundaries of the Summerlin Master
Planned Community; and
WHEREAS, Inclusion of these land in the Red Rocks Canyon National
Conservation Area (NCA) would preserve viewsheds of the Spring
Mountains from the Las Vegas Valley and provide for improved
public access to the NCA resulting in significant public
benefits; and
WHEREAS, HUGHES has selected lands within the Bureau of Land Management
disposal boundary for Las Vegas Valley that it considers
suitable for exchange for the lands being offered; and
WHEREAS, Approximately 1250 acres of these lands being selected would
be conveyed to Clark County for public parks and trails to be
administered by the Parks and Community Services Department;
and
WHEREAS, A number of leaders representing a variety of both state and
local environmental organizations have endorse this exchange.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners, of
Clark County, Nevada, hereby supports the Federal legislation
titled: H.R. 4141, Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area
Protection and Enhancement Act of 2002.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 4th day of June 2002.
CLARK COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
By: DARIO HERRERA, Chairman
ATTEST: SHIRLEY B. PARRAGUIRRE, County Clerk
______
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Ross, I appreciate your patience.
Welcome to the Committee--Subcommittee. Welcome here to speak
on your bill, H.R. 3815.
Mr. Radanovich. Please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Ross. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking
Member Christensen and to Chairman Hansen for his work with me
on this. I am here today to testify in support of H.R. 3815,
the Presidential Historic Site Study Act. It is a bipartisan
bill that I offered earlier this year.
This bill simply begins the normal process for preserving
an important American Presidential landmark. American
Presidents are a hallmark of our society. The way in which
Americans forever remember leadership of the greatest Nation is
through their policies, their words, and through the people and
places that have shaped their lives. We place a great
historical significance on the homes of Presidents because
indeed they are a part of our Nation's history. They are where
our leaders formed the beliefs and values that shaped their
decisions and legacies.
The meaning of these historic Presidential landmarks has
moved anyone who has ever visited sites like Mt. Vernon,
Monticello, Abraham Lincoln's birthplace at Spring Creek or
Ronald Reagan's birthplace.
The birthplace home of President William Jefferson Clinton
holds a piece of our Presidential history. It is only fitting
for it to be designated as a Natural Historic Site. I share the
unique opportunity of being the representative of former
President Clinton's birthplace home, Hope, Arkansas. In fact I
am a 1979 graduate of Hope High School. For 17 days back in
1991, we had a President from Hope, a Republican Governor from
Hope, and a Member of Congress from Hope. Two of us remain in
office today. In that small place called Hope, President
Clinton was educated and encouraged by a loving family in a
home at 117 South Hervey Street in Hope, Arkansas. This home
stands as a marker of his heritage.
President Clinton lived in two homes in Hope. However, I
have enclosed as an official part of my testimony today a copy
of a personal letter from former President Clinton designating
this home as his official birthplace for purposes of historic
significance.
Today the home is a tourist attraction operated by a non-
profit organization, and is seeking to be designated as a
National Historic Site. The Clinton Birthplace Foundation was
formed several years ago, and its executive director is here
today and will be testifying in just a little while, Crystal
Altenbaumer.
The Clinton Birthplace Foundation was founded several years
ago and has successfully renovated the birthplace home as a
museum and visitors center. To establish the William Jefferson
Clinton birthplace home as a National Historic Site, a
feasibility study must be completed. That is what we are
seeking to do with this legislation is to simply authorize the
Department of Interior to proceed with a feasibility study.
The eventual designation as a National Historic Site will
open the doors of economic opportunity through added tourism to
southwest Arkansas. A number of my fellow colleagues are
cosponsors of H.R. 3815, including every member of the Arkansas
delegation, including our Republican member, John Boozman and
the Chairman of the Committee, Chairman Hansen. Every member of
the Arkansas delegation has signed onto this bill.
My home state Governor, Mike Huckabee, a Republican who as
I mentioned is also from Hope, is also very supportive of this
study, and I have a letter here today from him in that regard.
[The letter from President Clinton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.001
Mr. Ross. Arkansans view this home as part of our long
legacy of history within the State. This is not about politics,
but instead it is about the rich history of Arkansas and our
Nation. This site will not only educate the thousands of
visitors each year that come to learn more about this part of
American history, but bring more jobs, more opportunities, more
tourism and, yes, more economic development to a part of my
district that greatly needs it.
Mr. Chairman, I would thank the members of the Subcommittee
for allowing me to testify this afternoon. I hope that this
bill will be marked up soon and offered before the House of
Representatives. And I will be happy to answer any questions
that you or members of the Committee might have at this time.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you so much Mr. Ross.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michael Ross, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Arkansas
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3815, the Presidential
Historic Site Study Act, a bipartisan bill that I offered earlier this
year.
This bill simply begins the normal process for preserving an
important American presidential landmark. American Presidents are a
hallmark of our society. The way in which Americans forever remember
leadership of the ``greatest nation'' is through their policies, their
words, and through the people and places that have shaped their lives.
We place a great historical significance on the homes of President's
because, indeed, they are a part of our nation's history. They are
where our leaders formed the beliefs and values that shaped their
decisions and legacies. The meaning of these historic presidential
landmarks has moved anyone who has visited Mt. Vernon, Monticello,
Abraham Lincoln's birthplace at Spring Creek, or Ronald Reagan's
birthplace. The birthplace home of President William Jefferson Clinton
holds a piece of our presidential history, and it is only fitting for
it to be designated as a National Historic Site.
I share the unique opportunity of being the Representative of
former President Clinton's birthplace home, Hope, Arkansas. In fact, I
am a 1979 graduate of Hope High School. In that small town called Hope,
President Clinton was educated and encouraged by a loving family in a
home at 117 South Hervey Street, Hope, AR. This home stands as a marker
of his hermitage. President Clinton lived in several homes in Hope;
however, I have enclosed as part of my official testimony a copy of
personal correspondence from President Clinton designating this home as
his ``official birthplace for purposes of historic significance.''
Today, the home is a tourist attraction to the local area and is
seeking to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places as a
National Landmark. The Clinton Birthplace Foundation was formed several
years ago. The foundation has successfully renovated the birthplace
home as a museum and visitors center. To establish the ``William
Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home'' as a National Historic Site, a
feasibility study must be completed. That is what we are seeking to do
with this legislation.
The eventual designation as a National Historic Site will open the
doors of economic opportunity through added tourism to Southwest
Arkansas. Thirty-one of my fellow colleagues are currently cosponsors
on H.R. 3815, including every member of the Arkansas delegation. My
home state's Governor, Mike Huckabee-a Republican, is supportive of
this study. Arkansans view this home as part of our long legacy of
history within the state. This is not about politics, but instead about
the rich history of Arkansas and our Nation. This site will, not only,
educate the thousands of visitors each year that come to learn about
this part of American history, but perhaps most importantly, bring more
jobs, more opportunities, and more economic development to a part of my
district that greatly needs it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Members of the Subcommittee
for allowing me to testify this afternoon. I hope that this bill will
be marked up soon and offered before the House of Representatives. I
will be happy to answer any questions the members of the Committee
might have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Are there any questions of the gentleman
from Arkansas? Mike, you are welcome to join us here on the
dais for the rest of the hearing if you would like.
Mr. Ross. Actually, we have--I appreciate that. I have got
a markup going on in Financial Services. I am going to run back
to that, if you will forgive me. Unless there are any
questions.
Mr. Radanovich. There are no questions. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Ross. Thank you for this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. With that we will move on to our next
panel, Panel No. 2, which consists of Ms. Nina Hatfield, Deputy
Director of Bureau of Land Management, the Department of the
Interior in Washington; and also Abigail Kimbell, Associate
Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
If you would begin your testimony, if we can keep it under
5 minutes, that would be terrific. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF NINA HATFIELD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Ms. Hatfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Department of the Interior regarding H.R. 4620, America's
Wilderness Protection Act, H.R. 4620, which attempts to deal
with the backlog of wilderness recommendations for both
designation and release that have built up in Congress now for
several years.
The Administration believes that the wilderness debate must
move forward and that Congress should do this by addressing
these wilderness study areas. We share the desire of the
sponsors of H.R. 4620 to move forward and, where appropriate,
designate lands as wilderness or return lands not suitable for
wilderness to multiple use management and other appropriate
uses. We would certainly like to work with Congress on
legislation to accomplish this.
This particular legislation potentially impacts three
Interior bureaus: The Bureau of Land Management, the National
Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. For the Bureau of
Land Management, Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, commonly referred to as FLPMA, charged
the BLM with identification and management of lands for the
National Wilderness Preservation System established by the 1964
Wilderness Act.
Between 1977 and 1980 the BLM identified over 700
wilderness study areas, covering approximately 26.5 million
acres. These areas were placed under BLM's interim management
policy to be managed to protect their wilderness values,
pending a final action by Congress. Congress has designated 148
BLM-managed wilderness areas, containing about 6.2 million
acres.
For the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park
Service, the Wilderness Act of 1964 instructed the Secretary to
review all roadless areas greater than 5,000 acres and all
roadless islands within the refuge system, and to make
recommendations to the President regarding the suitability of
these lands for classification as wilderness.
Between 1968 and 1990, Congress passed 15 laws designating
about 20 percent of the lands and waters in the refuge system
as wilderness, more than 20 million acres on 65 national
wildlife refuges. Congress has yet to act on wilderness
proposals for about 2 million acres and 21 refuges outside of
Alaska that were submitted between 1969 and 1974.
In the National Park Service, a total of 19 parks currently
have areas recommended by the President for wilderness
designation. Most of these areas have been awaiting
congressional action for more than 20 years.
H.R. 4620 seeks to move forward the wilderness debate. The
bill places a 10-year limit for action on existing WSAs, after
which any WSA lands not designated as wilderness would be
released from withdrawal. Following release, pursuant to this
legislation, management of the lands would revert to the plans
in place prior to the designation. The Administration is
currently formulating a position on this provision, and we look
forward to working with the Committee on this issue.
We support the goal of moving forward the wilderness debate
on wilderness designation, and want to work with the Congress
on legislation to accomplish these goals. Certainly,
determining a final management status of these lands would
achieve our objectives with respect to wilderness and
nonwilderness use.
The Administration agrees that the time has come to make
decisions about wilderness designation. The holding pattern
that we have been in for the last decade continues to frustrate
people on all sides of the issue. And we are hopeful that the
consideration of this bill will spur the debate. And we look
forward to working with you on it.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear today and look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Ms. Hatfield.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hatfield follows:]
Statement of Nina Rose Hatfield, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Budget and
Finance, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
Department of the Interior regarding H.R. 4620, ``America's Wilderness
Protection Act.'' H.R. 4620 is an attempt to deal with the backlog of
wilderness recommendations both for designation and release that have
built up in the Congress over the past 30 years. As my statement will
point out, the Department currently has pending before Congress
recommendations on many millions of acres of land managed by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
the National Park Service (NPS). The Administration believes that the
wilderness debate must move forward and Congress should do this by
addressing these Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Except for the large
amount of acreage addressed by the California Desert Protection Act of
1993 and approximately1.06 million acres designated in the 106th
Congress, there has been little activity in the Congress over the past
10 years in this area. We share the desire of the sponsors of H.R. 4620
to move forward and, where appropriate, designate lands as wilderness
or return lands not suitable for wilderness to multiple use management
and other appropriate uses, and would like to work with Congress on
legislation to accomplish this.
Background--Bureau of Land Management
Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(P.L. 94-579), commonly referred to as FLPMA, charged the BLM with
identification and management of lands for a National Wilderness
Preservation System established by the 1964 Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-
577).
Between 1977 and 1980 the BLM identified over 700 Wilderness Study
Areas (WSAs) covering approximately 26.5 million acres. These areas
were placed under BLM's Interim Management Policy (IMP) to be managed
to protect their wilderness values pending final action by Congress.
FLPMA directs the BLM to protect the wilderness character of these
lands until a decision on their final disposition is made by Congress.
The IMP provides detailed guidance to managers on this protection
mandate.
Between 1980 and 1991 the BLM studied its WSAs (with the exception
of Alaska) through the land use planning process. In 1991, and as
mandated by FLPMA, Secretary of the Interior Lujan transmitted to the
President his suitability recommendations for these WSAs. The
recommendations found 9.7 million acres of BLM-managed public lands in
330 units as suitable for inclusion in the National Wilderness
Preservation System. (Subsequent Congressional actions have reduced the
remaining acreage recommended as suitable to approximately 6.5 million
acres.) Between May of 1992 and January of 1993, President George H.W.
Bush endorsed the recommendations of Secretary Lujan and submitted them
to Congress. Apart from continuing to manage all the WSA lands for
their wilderness character, this completed the Executive Branch's
obligations under section 603 of FLPMA.
The BLM's first significant wilderness area--``Bear Trap Canyon
Wilderness'' in southwestern Montana--was designated by Congress in
1983. Since then, Congress (through nearly two dozen separate Acts) has
designated an additional 148 BLM-managed wilderness areas containing
about 6.25 million acres. In some cases, the Congress has generally
followed BLM's suitability recommendations. Far more frequently,
Members of Congress and Congressional delegations have conducted their
own investigation into proposed wilderness reaching their own separate
conclusions. These have included releasing areas recommended suitable,
designating areas originally recommended nonsuitable, designating areas
which were not WSAs, as well as creating WSAs legislatively.
There has been no single template for wilderness action by
Congress. In Arizona, for example, two laws, the Arizona Wilderness Act
of 1984 (P.L. 98-406) and the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-628) resolved almost all of Arizona's BLM wilderness issues
designating nearly 1.4 million acres of wilderness in 47 separate
areas. Likewise, the California Desert Protection Area of 1994 (P.L.
104-433) designated 69 new BLM wilderness areas covering over 3.5
million acres, seven legislated WSAs, largely resolving wilderness
issues in the California Desert. In the last Congress, five different
bills designated wilderness in California, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and
Nevada ranging from a single area of 17,700 acres in Colorado to 10
newly designated wilderness areas in Nevada containing over 750,000
acres.
At the present time 20 bills are pending in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to designate wilderness, and we are aware
of ongoing discussions by individual Members and entire delegations
concerning additional wilderness proposals.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service
The Wilderness Act of 1964 instructed the Secretary of the Interior
to review all roadless lands greater than 5,000 acres and all roadless
islands within the Refuge System and to make recommendations to the
President regarding the suitability of these lands for classification
as wilderness. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of
1980 (ANILCA) directed the Secretary to prepare a comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP) for each refuge in Alaska. ANILCA mandated that
the CCPs include a wilderness study of all refuge lands and waters that
were not designated wilderness by the Act.
Between 1968 and 1990, Congress passed 15 laws designating about
20% of the lands and waters in the Refuge System as wilderness--more
than 20 million acres on 65 national wildlife refuges. Congress has yet
to act on wilderness proposals for 2 million acres in 21 refuges
outside Alaska submitted between 1969 and 1974. These ``proposed
wilderness'' areas are managed to protect their wilderness values
pending final action by Congress.
In the National Park Service (NPS), a total of 19 parks, including
some of the best known in the National Park System, currently have
areas recommended by the President for wilderness designation. Most of
these areas have been awaiting Congressional action for more than
twenty years.
H.R. 4620
H.R. 4620 seeks to move forward the wilderness debate. The findings
of the bill state that certain Federal lands as wilderness are
beneficial to the American people and wilderness study areas were not
intended as a substitute for wilderness designation by Congress.
Finally, the findings point out that lands that merit wilderness
designation should be granted the full protection that such as status
would afford and those lands that do not merit such a designation
should be released so that they could be managed for the public good.
The bill places a 10-year time limit for action on existing WSAs,
after which any WSA lands not designated wilderness by Congress would
be released from withdrawal. Following release pursuant to the
legislation, management of the lands would revert to the plans in place
prior to their designation as WSAs. The Administration is currently
formulating a position on this provision and we look forward to working
with the Committee on this issue.
As stated above, we support the goal of moving forward the
wilderness debate and wilderness designation and want to work with
Congress on legislation that accomplishes these goals. As of today,
there are 16.3 million acres of BLM WSAs, 26.1 million acres of NPS
WSAs, and 5.3 million acres of FWS WSAs. Determining a final management
status of these lands would achieve our objectives with respect to
wilderness and non-wilderness use.
Conclusion
The Administration agrees that the time has come to make decisions
about wilderness designations. The holding pattern of the last decade
continues to frustrate people on all sides of the issue. We are hopeful
that Congress's consideration of H.R. 4620 will spur this debate. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am happy to
answer any questions the Committee may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Next is Abigail Kimbell, again the
Associate Deputy Chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Abigail,
welcome to the Committee and please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL KIMBELL, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST SERVICE
Ms. Kimbell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. My comments today
represent the views of the Department of Agriculture on H.R.
4620, America'S Wilderness Protection Act. My comments will be
fairly short.
Section 3(c) of the bill states: Any area released from
wilderness study area status shall revert to the land use
status that such area had immediately before the area was given
wilderness study area status and shall not be studied again
regarding wilderness designation. The Administration is
currently formulating a position on this provision. We look
forward to working with the Committee on the issue.
The study of the Forest Service primitive areas has long
since been completed. Wilderness suitability of National Forest
System lands has been examined in RARE I, RARE II, as well as
all of our land and resource management plans.
We would certainly like to move the debate forward. This
concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimbell follows:]
Statement of Abigail Kimbell, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am Abigail Kimbell, Associate
Deputy Chief, National Forest System, USDA Forest Service. My comments
today represent the views of the Department on H.R. 4620, ``America's
Wilderness Protection Act''.
For reasons I will detail in my testimony, the Department has some
concerns with this bill, but the Department would like to work with the
Committee to resolve these concerns as the bill is considered.
H.R. 4620, ``America's Wilderness Protection Act
H.R. 4620, America's Wilderness Protection Act, would accelerate
the wilderness designation process by establishing a timetable for the
completion of wilderness studies on Federal lands, and for other
purposes. The bill states, ``the establishment of a timetable for the
completion of wilderness studies would facilitate the wilderness
designation process by supplying a time frame within which Congress
must act.
Section 3(a) of the bill, directs all areas with Wilderness Study
Area status on the date of the enactment of this Act would be released
from Wilderness Study Area status on the earlier of the following:
(1) LThe date that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture, as appropriate, determines that the area is not
suitable for wilderness designation.
(2) L10 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) LThe date that the area is designated as wilderness by an Act
of Congress.
Section 3(b) of H.R. 4620, directs that any area that is given
Wilderness Study Area status after the date of enactment of this Act
shall be released from Wilderness Study Area status on the earlier of
the following:
(1) LThe date that the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture, as appropriate, determines that the area is not
suitable for wilderness designation.
(2) L10 years after the date that the area was given Wilderness
Study Area status.
(3) LThe date that the area is designated as wilderness by an Act
of Congress.
Section 3(c) of the bill states any area released from Wilderness
Study Area status shall revert to the land use status such area had
immediately before the area was given Wilderness Study Area status and
shall not be studied again regarding wilderness designation. The
Administration is currently formulating a position on this provision
and we look forward to working with the Committee on this issue.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 provided for the study of certain
National Forest System lands for wilderness suitability. The study of
Forest Service Primitive Areas has long since been completed.
Wilderness suitability of National Forest System lands has been
examined in RARE I, RARE II, as well as many Land and Resource
Management Plans. Although the President and the Secretary may
recommend that certain areas be designated wilderness, Congress
reserves the authority to designate areas as wilderness. Congress may
direct the study of specific areas through specific wilderness
legislation.
In conclusion, the Department is committed to working cooperatively
with the Committee to identify and secure for the American public, the
benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness that can be used and
enjoyed by current and future generations.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Any questions from any of the members?
Mrs. Christensen. Well, if I might; Ms. Hatfield, is the
Bureau of Land Management, then, supporting or not supporting
the bill?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, the Administration hasn't yet taken a
position on the bill. They are still looking at the issues
related to the bill and would like to work with the Committee
on the bill.
Mrs. Christensen. And just one other question. I am not
sure how many wilderness studies are out there, but are most--
how long does it take for most of the studies to be done?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, it would vary with the size of the unit
that you are looking at and the complexity of the issues
related to it. But I think that, certainly in most cases, many
of the wilderness areas have already been looked at. And as we
are looking through, trying to revise our plans--and we are
doing that in most of the areas of the country--then there
could be additional areas.
A plan for a land area usually will take about 3 years to
do, and wilderness would be considered as a part of that
planning process.
Mrs. Christensen. So you are saying that the studies are
completed within 10 years normally?
Ms. Hatfield. Yes. Most of the wilderness study areas in
the Bureau of Land Management that have already been identified
are now before Congress. But there is a provision in the Act
that does allow us to go through and look at our land uses
throughout the Bureau, and in the process of doing that, you
might consider if there are wilderness values on a particular
area of land.
Mrs. Christensen. So it sounds as if most of them can be
done within 10 years and are done within 10 years. So the
problem is really here, acting on whether to designate the
wilderness or not.
Ms. Hatfield. Absolutely. I think that the Bureau and the
other agencies have already put before Congress areas that they
believe have wilderness characteristics and should be
considered. And so the real issue is here, is Congress looking
at those wilderness study areas and making a decision if in
fact they intend to designate them as wilderness areas.
Mrs. Christensen. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To either one of the
testifiers--so convert back. If something has gone through a
plan and been looked at for wilderness value, and maybe the
decision in the plan is that this is not going to be used as
wilderness, would there be instances where after we have spent
the time and expense to look at the land, where maybe your
Agency should be looking at not converting back to the original
plan, but looking for a plan that would protect either a
significant ecosystem or populations of plant or wildlife that
might be existing on the land without going to the wilderness
designation? So do we have a choice of one or the other only?
Ms. Kimbell. Under the National Forest Management Act, we
analyze forestlands, forest by forest. And the National Forest
Management Act was passed in 1976. We have completed the first
round of planning. We are involved in the second round. Each
time we go through that planning process, we evaluate all of
the lands on the national forest, other than those that have
already been congressionally designated as a special area, and
we evaluate them for different uses, including potential
wilderness. They are then assigned a land use designation. So
there is a great range of land use designations. We might
recommend some area for wilderness. We might decide to
designate it as primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized,
semiprimitive motorized. There are a whole host of land use
designations that would be specific to that piece of land.
Ms. McCollum. So how are you answering my question? I
thought my question was kind of simple. You said if it wasn't
designated wilderness, it gets converted back. And I said, in
doing the wilderness study, if you find a different use for the
land or a different designation, can you do that? Yes or no?
Ms. Kimbell. Yes.
Ms. McCollum. So then it does not have to convert back to
the original status that it was prior to doing the wilderness
investigation?
Ms. Kimbell. Well, currently under the National Forest
Management Act, we evaluate it for a whole host of different
land use designations. It doesn't necessarily revert to any
specific designation.
Ms. McCollum. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because I
thought I heard in the testimony, repeatedly, it converts back
to what it was prior to being designated wilderness--prior to
the study. And thank you for the clarification that after the
study is done that you look and evaluate it.
Unless staff here wants to clarify what I heard?
Mrs. Christensen. Would you yield? I think that the bill
under consideration does that, reverts it back to prior use.
Ms. Hatfield. You are really talking about two different
types of areas. Currently, at least for Interior land, you have
50 million acres of designated wilderness study areas that are
before Congress for consideration. And in addition to that, the
agencies do look at, routinely, their land base to make plans
and constantly update those based on public impact, public
input, and changes of situations that happen.
And in that consideration, I think, as Ms. Kimbell has
related, that we would look at wilderness values also.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, seeing as how we are on the
bill, your question was for current policy. With the bill in
front of us, do you feel that you have any input after you have
looked at a study, even if wilderness is not the
recommendation, to have any voice, any concerns, any input as
to how the land should be designated?
Ms. Kimbell. As I stated in my testimony, the Department of
Agriculture would like to work with the Subcommittee on the
language in Section 3(c).
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you. Mr. Otter, did you have any
questions?
Mr. Otter. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Hatfield, how does the Department of Interior and
Forest Service--I guess I would ask Ms. Kimbell as well--
currently manage wilderness study areas?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, they are currently managed so that the
values that made them wilderness study areas in the first place
will be maintained in the future. And so they are managed to
maintain the status quo, if you will.
Mr. Otter. Does that include the eradication of noxious and
invasive weeds?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, certainly we can take actions like
prescribed burns and some other management actions like that
that are designed to maintain the health of the area. But for
the most part, it is maintained with the idea of maintaining
the wilderness characteristics.
Mr. Otter. Could you help me out with some activity
definitions here? What kind of activity, human activity, is
allowed in wilderness areas?
Ms. Hatfield. I think that, generally speaking, the
activity is designed to be more nonmotorized type of activity,
dispersed camping, individual camping; looking at these as I
think the original legislation looked at in terms of enjoying
the solitude and natural areas, areas that haven't primarily
been used a great deal in terms of human interaction with it.
Mr. Otter. During your testimony you referred to the over
700--I think it was--study areas on BLM ground, representing
26.5 million acres. During that, you said you had submitted to
Congress, I think it was well over 100-some that should have
been designated either for multiple use or for wilderness; is
that right?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, currently there are about 16.3 million
acres in BLM that are before Congress as wilderness study
areas, and they are being managed by the Bureau as wilderness
study areas. In other words, maintaining the status quo, if you
will.
Mr. Otter. You have made recommendations, then, to Congress
that these should be wilderness areas?
Ms. Hatfield. That is correct. Now, there have also been
some other subsequent recommendations by the Bureau determining
that some of those areas may not be suitable for wilderness
designation.
Mr. Otter. That would be the 40 in Idaho, for instance,
that have been referred back and said this does not have--these
do not have wilderness qualities.
Ms. Hatfield. Yes, but we are still maintaining those as
wilderness study areas.
Mr. Otter. Now, who do you submit this list to, this advice
to? Is this submitted directly to Congress or is this submitted
to the President?
Ms. Hatfield. The President submitted it to Congress.
Mr. Otter. And how many of those have been submitted to
Congress by the President?
Ms. Hatfield. I think that--I will ask to submit the
total--the list specifically to the record.
[Mr. Hatfield's response, which was submitted for the
record, follows:]
Between 1991 and 1993, the President submitted nine reports
to Congress:
July 1991--California
May 1992--New Mexico
June 1992--Utah
July 1992--Oregon
July 1992--Wyoming
September 1992--Idaho
September 1992--Nevada
January 1993--Colorado
January 1993--Montana
Ms. Hatfield. But about 70 million acres of Interior
lands--BLM, Park Service, Forest, Fish and Wildlife--have been
designated as wilderness, and about 50 million acres are still
available to be studied.
Mr. Otter. Well, I have been advised by staff that although
the BLM may have made the recommendation, that list has not
been submitted by the President to Congress.
Ms. Hatfield. That is right.
Mr. Otter. What is the difference in activity between
wilderness and monument status?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, the monuments are managed based upon
the document that established the particular monument. And each
of those declarations, whether they be legislative or
Presidential--the monument document, for example, establishes
whether or not there is going to be further mineral activity or
further grazing, as an example, what kind of recreational
activity. The wilderness areas are really designated in the
context of the 1964 Wilderness Act.
Mr. Otter. I would invite Ms. Kimbell to also respond to
this if she would. Would you be able to tell me how long the
Staircase-Escalante Monument was studied prior to its getting
its designation?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, I will certainly try to supply that to
the record.
Mr. Otter. Do you have a guess as to how long it was
studied before--
Ms. Hatfield. I don't personally. I have been more involved
with it since its designation.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you want to
respond?
Ms. Kimbell. Nor do I have an exact number.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Hatfield, can you tell me--you had
mentioned the 40 study areas that are in Idaho right now that
have been looked at and deemed not having the characteristics
for a wilderness area but they are still being managed as such.
Can you explain why that is the case, and why it hasn't been
reverted back to regular management of BLM?
Ms. Hatfield. I would like to check on the numbers in terms
of Idaho specifically and check on that. But, generally
speaking, FLPMA, which included a duty for the Bureau of Land
Management to inventory and decided what areas might have
wilderness characteristics, also provided that the BLM would
maintain those areas as wilderness study areas once the
President had sent it forward to Congress. That is the
management scheme under which we are now working.
And so it is based on the--our legislation, FLPMA.
Mr. Radanovich. Is there any intention of reverting it back
to anything other than the management of wilderness in those
areas?
Ms. Hatfield. Not until Congress makes a decision with
regard to those specific acres, because our statute would
require they be managed as wilderness.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Thank you.
If you will bear with me, I have got a question to read
that is little bit long. If you would bear with me. Section 603
of the Federal Lands Policy Management Act mandates that the
Secretary review lands having characteristics of wilderness and
then making a recommendation to the President, which is what we
have talked about. This section also states that this review
shall comply with Section 603(d) of the Wilderness Act which
deals with the recommendation of suitable lands for wilderness.
Keep in mind that these provisions of law refer to the
recommended areas of wilderness designation. So, with that in
mind, do you agree that when Section 603(c) refers to such
areas during the period of review, that this means only those
areas which have been recommended as suitable for wilderness
designation?
Ms. Hatfield. Well, I think that the thrust of your
question is that FLPMA Section 603 does provide a mechanism by
which the Bureau has inventoried lands through the--I think the
first 15 years after the passage of FLPMA. BLM did make
recommendations which the President has submitted to Congress.
Those are the ones that are being managed as wilderness study
areas.
Now, in addition to that, in its normal planning process,
the Bureau has designated some other wilderness study areas.
Those would be ones that could be changed through the land use
planning process. So there are two different types. But about
98 percent of them are the FLPMA 603 areas. About 98 percent of
them are the ones--under FLPMA 603--that Congress has the
authority to decide whether or not in fact they should be
wilderness and, thus, the bulk of the area that we would like
to move forward working with Congress to work out a solution.
Mr. Radanovich. Right. Is it the BLM's policy to consider
land studied and not recommended for wilderness designation to
remain wilderness study area status as if they were part of the
recommendation?
Ms. Hatfield. Currently?
Mr. Radanovich. Yes.
Ms. Hatfield. That is currently how we are managing.
Mr. Radanovich. You state in your testimony that proposed
wilderness areas are managed to protect their wilderness values
pending congressional action. Where in the Wilderness Act does
it mention proposed wilderness and that these areas need to be
managed for their wilderness values?
Ms. Hatfield. Again, with regard to BLM, you are operating
basically under FLPMA. The FLPMA provision is 603. Under that
provision we have looked at them. We have submitted them to the
President. Those are subject to congressional action.
Mr. Radanovich. But is that language that authorizes you to
do that in the Wilderness Act? You mentioned under BLM.
Ms. Hatfield. Well, FLPMA refers to the Wilderness Act. But
the actual legislative import for BLM's action was through the
Federal Land Management and Policy Act, FLPMA. But it does
reference the Wilderness Act in terms of a standard.
Mr. Radanovich. OK. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, so the Agency studies, the
President recommends, and then Congress needs to act. In
Section 206 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, (c):
During the period of review, such areas, until Congress has
determined otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage
such lands according to his authority or her authority under
the Act under the applicable laws in a manner as not to impair
the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness
subject to, however, the continuation of existing mining and
grazing uses and mineral rights in the manner--
Then it says, that in managing the public lands, the
Secretary shall by regulation or otherwise take any action
required to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the
lands and their resources or whatever--basically goes on and
says until Congress acts.
So you are following the law. You have done your inventory,
the President's list--and there seems to be some controversy
between which staff you talk to whether a list has been handed
in.
Ms. Hatfield. No. We have submitted a list.
Ms. McCollum. Then it is up to us. It is up to this
Subcommittee and this full Committee to start acting on the
pending legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, they are just doing what
they are supposed to be.
Mr. Radanovich. All right. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hatfield, appreciate your testimony as well as you, Ms.
Kimbell.
Excuse me, not quite done yet. Mr. Otter has another
question.
Mr. Otter. I would like to follow up on something that Ms.
McCollum was talking about earlier before the second round
began, and that was relative to the problem that everybody has
with Section 3(c), and that is reverting it back to wilderness.
And I would like to accommodate that kind of thought in
this bill, that if it wasn't going to be wilderness, and if it
was going to be designated a use other than the use prior to it
being designated as a study area, do you think that would take
more than 10 years to decide whether or not that was going to
be a use other than (A) wilderness or (B) its prior use?
Ms. Hatfield. I think that is one of the questions that we
would like to talk with the Committee more about. As we read
Section 3(a), when a wilderness study area reverts back it will
revert back under the plan for the land that was in place at
the time that the wilderness study area would have been
designated.
For all of the agencies involved here, I think that for the
most part, those plans are very old. And so it certainly raises
some questions for us about the appropriate management of those
areas. I think that is one of the issues that we would like to
spend more time talking to the Committee about.
Mr. Otter. Given that in the subsequent question that was
asked in the second round by Ms. McCollum, I can understand--
and the reading of that section refers to leasing of mineral
rights and that sort of thing. But it also reverts to the
consideration for historical uses, does it not?
Ms. Hatfield. I think that if it reverted back--I am
assuming that the thrust of the legislation as passed would
make it revert back. Then the land management agency is going
to have to go through a planning process to decide what is the
appropriate use now and that may or may not be wilderness.
Mr. Otter. No, I understand that. But during the study
period, during the study time and the designation as the
wilderness and it stops any leasing of the mineral rights or
subsurface rights or mining rights or anything like that, but
in many wilderness--if in a wilderness study area for BLM there
had been historical grazing rights on that wilderness area, are
those grazing rights considered a historical use and continued
during the study period?
Ms. Hatfield. Yes, sir. We are continuing to allow some
grazing as long as it, again, does not impair the values for
which the study area was originally designated. So the defining
piece in terms of how they are managed is trying to maintain
the qualities for which it was originally designated.
Mr. Otter. So there was a qualifying word that you used in
there, ``some.'' we are quite a few, at least in our area,
where the historical grazing rights have been discontinued as a
result of it becoming a study area.
Ms. Hatfield. Well, it is a management decision. And so is
does require some management determination. But the thrust of
the management is to maintain the area in a manner that
maintains the values that made it a wilderness study area. But
as you can well understand, those kinds of conflicts are the
reasons that the agencies would like to have a final
determination about whether or not these areas are, in fact,
wilderness areas or if, in fact, they should be open to more
multiple uses. And that is a congressional decision.
Mr. Otter. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Ms. Hatfield, what in your mind is a final
determination? Would it be an act of Congress, a law passed or
would it be a join resolution? Does it need to be a law?
Ms. Hatfield. I think that under the scheme that is
currently in place, the Congress would pass a bill designating
it as wilderness. That is how it has been done.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you again for being here as
witnesses. We will go ahead and call our next panel.
Mr. Radanovich. The Honorable Randy Johnson is Commissioner
from Emery County Castle Dale in Utah; The Honorable Chris
Salove, Commissioner of Owyhee County, Marsing, Idaho; The
Honorable Douglas Thompson, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association and Public Lands Council, Lander, Wyoming; Mr. Rick
Johnson Executive Director of the Idaho Conservation League in
Boise, Idaho. Mr. Donald Barry, Executive Vice President of the
Wilderness Society, Washington D.C.
Gentlemen, welcome to the panel. We are going to go ahead
and take opening statements from everybody and--testimony, I
should say. And then open up the panel for questions.
And Mr. Johnson if you would go ahead and begin and then we
will just work our way to my right and get everybody's
testimony. Please note the clock there. It may be far away from
some of you though we would like to keep testimony under 5
minutes. I will start tapping my pencil if it goes more. But
green means go, yellow means speed up, and red means stop.
Mr. Randy Johnson. Should we do that the way they drive in
Washington, sort of suggestions?
Mr. Radanovich. Just like driving a car.
STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, EMERY COUNTY,
CASTLE DALE, UTAH
Mr. Randy Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I come to you from Emery
County, Utah, a county roughly the size of the State of
Connecticut with just under 11,000 residents. More than 81
percent of our county is Federally owned, and another 9 percent
is owned by the State. Our tax base is mostly from electrical
generating facilities. Our five power plants provide more than
65 percent of the power for the State of Utah.
Clearly, public land management policies deeply impact life
in Emery Country. Rural communities like Emery County face many
difficult problems in maintaining economic viability. A big
part of the problem, if I may say so, is the all-or-nothing
approach to public land management issues used by many in this
debate. This has become very harmful and it is deeply
concerning that in our zeal to protect land and wildlife, we
are not only ignoring one of our most important national
treasures, we are actually working to eliminate it. I refer of
course to the small communities of the rural west.
It is because of this problem that in 1995, the Emery
County Commission created the Emery County Public Lands Council
to act as an extension of the commissioners in dealing with
complex public land issues. This group meets monthly in a
public setting and it has MOUs with every agency that operates
on vast public lands in Emery county. Those agencies meet with
us monthly as well. The results have been very positive.
Besides having an excellent working relationship with all the
agencies that manage our lands, the Public Lands Council has
become very proactive in public land matters.
For 7 years now, we have invited stakeholders to our table
and have developed a collaborative process that has been both
inclusive and comprehensive. From this process has evolved
legislation for the San Rafael Swell developed entirely by the
Public Lands Council, which has twice been introduced here in
Congress. Most recently we have proposed that the President use
his powers to protect the San Rafael as a Western Heritage
National Monument.
Emery County has become a leader in its proactive approach
to public land management. We love the lands our ancestors
settled with their sweat and tears. We are very protective of
those lands. We are anxious to protect the San Rafael Swell,
but we recognize the San Rafael is a land of many varied
treasures. Not only are the cliffs and canyons and mesas
spectacular, but equally impressive is the human heritage and
the natural history. We want to protect this land but not just
for one singular part of what makes the San Rafael spectacular.
We want to protect all the treasures of this land: The uranium
mining history, the outlaw history, the pioneer history, the
traditional uses such as easterin', and well as many others.
It is from this perspective that I testify today. I am not
anti wilderness. I am not against preserving pristine qualities
where they exist. I am against contention and I am against
letting problems fester for decades. What I am for is
collaboration. I am for solutions. I am here today because I
believe that this legislation could help resolve a long
standing and contentious debate.
If I may give a few quick reasons why I support H.R. 4620.
No. 1, two decades of debate and argument is enough. It is time
we worked it out and get on with our lives. This legislation
would help us to do that. No. 2, we are not the same as we were
in the 1960's and 1970's. We have changed as a society. We are
careful of our environment. We have many layers of protective
management already on our lands. Wilderness is just one tool in
a complex management system. It is time to create management
that reflects our sophistication as an environmentally
conscious people, and that reflects the complex needs of the
people who own and use these lands.
Reason No. 3, the Wilderness Act has been seriously
weakened by decades of debating its real meaning. The original
intent of Congress to set aside exemplary lands for future
generations has been largely ignored. We are now in an ever-
expanding mode where all public lands that are beautiful are
considered to be potential wilderness. We are attempting to
create wilderness by reclamation where we ignore the impacts of
man and attempt to force-fit wilderness wherever we can. This
is inherently contentious. It creates enemies. H.R. 4620 will
allow us to resolve these differences.
Reason number 4, the current wilderness debate nullifies
all other good efforts to manage and protect our public lands,
however appropriate they may be. Unless a particular management
concept contains all the wilderness proposed by wilderness
advocacy groups, fair consideration of its merits is
impossible. National wilderness groups unilaterally oppose any
concept that does not match their acreage quotas, thus
rendering collaborative and cooperative efforts useless since
passage of any legislation that does not have the endorsement
of these groups is virtually impossible. Emery County's own
H.R. 3625 and H.R. 3605 are excellent examples of this. H.R.
4620 would effectively compel all stakeholders to make an
effort to resolve their differences, and thus it would allow
for fair consideration of healthy collaborative concepts for
management of our public lands.
In conclusion, I must say that the only real reason I can
think of to oppose this legislation is if your entire objective
is to keep the debate contentious and the conflict endless. I
respectfully ask this Committee, must we be doomed forever to
fight this same fight unnecessarily. I submit that to set
deadlines for designation of wilderness would compel
stakeholders to reach compromise solutions, to make an effort
to resolve differences to benefit of all involved, and it is
time that we do exactly that. I strongly recommend passage of
H.R. 4620.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
[The prepared statement of Randy Johnson follows:]
Statement of Randy G. Johnson, Commissioner, Emery County, Utah, on
behalf of Rural Public Lands County Council and Utah Association of
Counties
Mr. Chairman, I come to you from Emery County, Utah, a county
roughly the size of the State of Connecticut with just under 11,000
residents. More than 81% of our county is Federally owned, and another
9% is state owned. Our tax base is mostly from electrical-generating
facilities. Our five power plant units provide more than 65% of the
electrical power for the State of Utah.
Clearly, public land management policies deeply impact life in
Emery County. Rural communities like Emery County face many difficult
problems in maintaining economic viability. A big part of the problem,
if I may say so, is the all-or-nothing approach to public land
management issues used by many in the debate. This has become very
harmful. All-or-nothing philosophies are intolerant. They refuse
compromise. They are prejudicial and contentious by design, and the
result is that this is the way we have been forced to do business on
our public lands for the last twenty years. It is deeply concerning
that in our zeal to protect land and wildlife, we are not only ignoring
one of our most important national treasures, we are actually working
to eliminate it. I refer, of course, to the small communities of the
rural west.
It is because of this problem that, in 1995, the Emery County
Commission created the Emery County Public Lands Council to act as an
extension of the commissioners in dealing with complex public lands
issues. This group, made up of the three commissioners and nine other
people from all areas of experience and expertise, meets monthly in a
public setting. The Council has a Memorandum of Understanding with
every agency that does business on Emery County's vast public lands,
and those agencies meet with us each month. The results have been very
positive. Emery County has an excellent working relationship with all
the agencies that manage our lands. Further, the Public Lands Council
has become very proactive in public land matters. For almost seven
years now, we have invited stakeholders to our table and have developed
a collaborative process that has been both inclusive and comprehensive.
Our rules have been simple: First, we value every viewpoint; second, we
have no pre-set objectives, but rather we let the process define the
product; third, we recognize that there are no one-size-fits-all
solutions; and fourth, we believe that no public land management plan
will work unless it addresses the needs of the people who use and enjoy
those lands.
From this process has evolved legislation for the San Rafael Swell,
developed entirely by the Public Lands Council, which has twice been
introduced in Congress. Most recently, we have proposed that the
President use his powers to protect the San Rafael as a Western
Heritage National Monument
Through our efforts, Emery County has become a clear leader among
counties in its pro-active approach to public lands management. We love
the lands our ancestors settled with their sweat and tears. We are very
protective of them. We are anxious to protect the San Rafael Swell. But
we recognize that the San Rafael is a land of many varied treasures.
Not only are the cliffs and canyons and mesas spectacular, but equally
impressive is the human heritage and the natural history. We want to
protect this land, but not just for one, singular part of what makes
the San Rafael spectacular. We want to protect all the treasures of
this land---the uranium mining history, the outlaw history, the pioneer
history, traditional uses such as ``easterin''', as well as many
others.
It is from this perspective that I testify today. I am not anti-
wilderness. I am not against preserving pristine qualities where they
exist. However, I am against contention. I am against letting problems
fester for decades. What I am for is collaboration. I am for solutions,
and I am here today because I believe that this legislation could help
resolve a long-standing and contentious debate.
Since being asked to testify, I have wondered what I could say that
hasn't already been said many times. We have been at each other's
throats over public land management for so long, it seems impossible to
say anything that will shed new light on the situation. What I would
like to do is give you five reasons why I believe that H.R. 4620 should
be passed by Congress.
Reason number one: Two decades of debate and argument is long
enough. Some people will say that this is such an important issue that
we should hold out for our acreage quotas no matter what happens. I say
we ought to be ashamed. No one concept fits all the needs of our public
lands. Further, no one management concept should be allowed to hold
hostage other good, collaborative progress. That is exactly what
wilderness has done, and it is time we work things out and get on with
our lives. This legislation would assure that would happen.
Reason number two: We are not the same as we were in the 1960's and
1970's when we were new to environmental concerns. We have changed as a
society. We have learned. We are careful of our environment. We have
many layers of protective management on our public lands. Wilderness is
just one of many tools in a complex management system. Yet some
approach public lands management as though we were stuck in the 1970's.
They work to create a false sense of urgency in order to promote their
acreage quotas. They make it appear as though it is wilderness or
degradation with nothing in-between. It is time to create management
that reflects our sophistication as an environmentally-conscious
people, and that reflects the complex needs of the public who owns the
land.
Reason number three: The Wilderness Act has been seriously weakened
by decades of debating its real meaning. The original intent of
Congress--to set aside exemplary lands for future generations--has been
largely ignored. We are now in an ever-expanding mode, where all public
lands that are beautiful are considered to be potential wilderness. We
are attempting to create wilderness by reclamation, where we ignore the
impacts of man and attempt to force-fit wilderness wherever we can.
This is an unnecessary and unhealthy effort. It is inherently
contentious. It creates enemies. H.R. 4620 will stop the ever-enlarging
wilderness monster that we all are forced to live with now, and allow
us to finally resolve our differences.
Reason number four: The current wilderness debate nullifies all
other good efforts to manage and protect our public lands, however
appropriate they may be. Unless a particular management concept
contains all the wilderness proposed by wilderness advocacy groups,
fair consideration of its merits is impossible. National wilderness
groups unilaterally oppose any concept that does not match their
acreage quotas, thus rendering collaborative and cooperative efforts
useless, since passage of any legislation that does not have the
endorsement of these groups is virtually impossible. Emery County's own
H.R. 3625 and H.R. 3605 are excellent examples of this. H.R. 4620 would
effectively compel all stakeholders to make an effort to resolve their
differences, and thus it would allow fair consideration of healthy
collaborative concepts for management of our public lands. Given this
environment, I believe that we would see many collaborative efforts,
such as has occurred in Emery County, spring up all over the country.
Reason number five: The only reason to oppose this legislation is
if your entire objective is to keep the debate contentious and the
conflict endless in order to continually expand your acreage quotas. It
becomes a war for the sake of the war. H.R. 1500 is an example of this.
For many years, the goal for Utah's wilderness advocates was 5.7
million acres. However, when there was some sentiment in Utah to create
between 2.5 and 3.0 million acres of wilderness in Utah, the wilderness
people suddenly found 4.4 million acres of new wilderness, bringing
their acreage goal to 9.1 million acres. This is not about land
protection. It is about business. It is a way of doing business that
would be threatened if solutions were within our grasp. We are talking
about a dynasty built upon an illusion of urgency--an illusion we have
helped to create and perpetuate by our inability to collaborate and
resolve our differences. An ever-expanding monster. A war for the sake
of a war.
I respectfully ask this Committee, must we be doomed forever to
fight this same fight unnecessarily? I submit that to set deadlines for
designation of wilderness would compel stakeholders to reach compromise
solutions'to make an effort to resolve differences to the benefit of
all involved. It is time we do exactly that. I strongly recommend the
passage of H.R. 4620.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Chris Salove, if I have got it right,
from Owyhee County Idaho.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS SALOVE, COMMISSIONER, OWYHEE COUNTY,
MARSING, IDAHO
Mr. Salove. One is about as close as the other. I thank you
for the opportunity to be here before you today. My name is
Chris Salove and I am elected county commissioner from Owyhee
County, Idaho.
Mr. Radanovich. You see this? This gets abused all the
time.
Mr. Salove. I am sure you can appreciate that. I am also a
newly appointed member of the Lower Snake River district, BLM
Resource Advisory Council. Owyhee County is a very large
county, about 4.9 million acres. We lie in the southwest corner
of Idaho bordering Oregon to our west and Nevada to our south.
Of our 4.9 million acres, over 70 percent is owned by the
United States and managed by the BLM. The economy of our county
is dependent upon the continued multiple use of these lands,
particularly the grazing as mandated in the Taylor Grazing Act,
the Federal Lands policy and Management Act, and the Public
Grange Lands Improvement Act.
The viability of our economy and of the ranching industry
is threatened by conflicts arising out of arbitrary management
by our local BLM. To that end, I am here on behalf of the
Owyhee County Commissioners to testify in favor of H.R. 4620,
America's Wilderness Protection Act. We believe this Act would
help resolve the conflicts. We also believe it will benefit the
land and its resources as well as our economy, the two of which
are inseparable. There currently is no designated wilderness
within Owyhee County. We do, however, have four wilderness
study areas which combined total approximately 750,000 acres.
The first of these studies began in 1982, the last was
concluded in 1989. These areas are being managed more
restrictively than if they were actual wilderness designations.
When Congress designates a wilderness area, existing rights
are protected and guidelines are set for future use. When the
BLM manages under its own administrative policies the
restrictions are so rigid that they endanger continued multiple
use. Their don't-touch policy applied to the entire 750,000
acres, even though the BLM itself only recommends 400,000 acres
for wilderness.
They acknowledge that the other 350,000 acres is unsuitable
due to the need for intensive management actions such as
control of the rapid invasion of Western Juniper into the sage
brush grass ecosystems. Within the 400,000 acres, they
recommend for wilderness they have identified the need for many
management actions needed to maintain or improve ecosystem
values. Yet none of these actions ever occur because of their
rigid don't-touch policy, even though the actions are allowable
under the Wilderness Act and its extension to FLPMA. We believe
that BLM's rigid don't-touch management is inconsistent with
the legislative intent of Congress in passing the Wilderness
Act of 1964 and the wilderness section of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976.
The House Committee report as to the Wilderness Act points
out the importance of legislative, not administrative control
of wilderness areas. To quote, a statutory framework for
preservation of wilderness would permit long-range planning and
assure that no future administrator could arbitrarily or
capriciously either abolish wilderness areas that should be
retained or make wholesale designations of individual areas--of
additional areas, in which use would be limited.
When Congress broadened the impact of the Wilderness Act to
the BLM acts by amending FLPMA in 76 the legislative intent was
the same as that expressed in passing the Wilderness Act. The
Committee report pointed out that section 603 of FLPMA provided
that administrative recommendations as to wilderness would be
submitted to Congress, quote, for appropriate action. The
Committee report even emphasized that the review process should
be expedited, stating that the Committee expects the secretary
to establish priorities in a manner which will expedite the
review process and which will cause minimum interference with
existing multiple use management of the public lands.
The bill now under your consideration is consistent with
and will implement the intent of Congress stated in these
reports. For purposes of resolving land use conflicts which are
harmful to our environment as well as our economy, and for
purposes of producing clear legislative guidance to the use of
our unique lands, we ask that you pass America's Wilderness
Protection Act. And since I have got 30 seconds left, I would
like to recognize the fact that we have got the Idaho
Conservation League and the Wilderness Society here, we have
been working with their Idaho representatives through the
Owyhee initiative, a collaborative effort began by the Owyhee
County commissioners. Through that effort I have gained a new
respect and understanding for these two groups. And I don't
think we are as far apart as a lot of people would like to make
out that we are. I think there is a lot of room for us to work
together and come to an understanding, but it is time to do
something and quit studying it.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much, Chris. Appreciate your
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chris Salove follows:]
Statement of Chris Salove, Member, Snake River BLM Resource Advisory
Council
My name is Chris Salove. I am an elected County Commissioner in
Owyhee County, Idaho. I also serve as an appointed member of the Lower
Snake River BLM Resource Advisory Council.
Owyhee County, located in the southwest part of Idaho at its
juncture with Oregon and Nevada, has a huge land mass and over 70% of
it is owned by the United States. Economic health of our county and its
citizens is dependent upon livestock grazing as mandated by Congress in
the Taylor Grazing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and
the Public Rangelands Improvement Act.
The viability of ranching in our county is threatened by land use
conflicts which arise out of arbitrary management of Wilderness Study
Areas by local BLM employees. I appear to testify in favor of America's
Wilderness Protection Act, H.R. 4620, because I believe it will help
resolve such conflicts. Passage of the Act will benefit the land and
its resources which are critical to a sound environment in our County,
and to the economic stability of our ranchers and our county.
The two go hand in hand: a sound environment and economic
stability. We recognize that in Owyhee County, and the Board of
Commissioners recognizes its responsibility to pursue both.
Owyhee County contains no designated wilderness. But, BLM studies
of wilderness potential began in our County 17 years ago. Four separate
studies have resulted in the placement of about 750,000 acres in
administrative wilderness study areas. These acres are managed in a far
more restrictive manner than actual wilderness designations by Congress
in other parts of the country. When Congress designates a wilderness
area, it mandates protection of existing rights and it sets the
guidelines for continued uses such as grazing. But, land which lies
only in a wilderness study area is managed by the BLM under its own
administrative policy and procedures which are so restrictive that they
endanger continued multiple use.
The irony in our county is that the rigid restrictions do not
result from recommendations for wilderness designation, but simply from
the fact that the BLM studied the area for wilderness potential. All
750,000 acres are rigidly restricted, even though the BLM itself has
recommended only slightly more than half those acres for wilderness
designation. The general studies for wilderness potential began in
Owyhee County in 1982. The last study of the four separate areas
studied was completed in 1989. The BLM recommended wilderness
designation for 400,000 acres, and recommended that multiple uses be
continued without wilderness designation on the other 350,000 acres.
Much of the 350,000 acre portion of the studied areas was not
recommended for wilderness designation because of the BLM identified a
need for intensive management to restore or protect the landscape
ecology.
The areas not recommended for wilderness designation have been
subjected to a ``do not touch'' policy. Such policy of ``non-use'' is
arbitrarily applied even to those areas which the BLM said were in
imminent need of intensive management efforts. It is harmful to the
total environment of Owyhee County for the BLM to refuse to allow
management improvement actions even in those areas in which the BLM has
identified the need for intense management.
That is the dilemma, however, that we face because of the
administrative tie-up of these ``study areas''. Since the first
wilderness study Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 1986,
the studied lands have been off limits to any kind of management. Even
maintenance of existing range improvements is allowed only with BLM
approval, and that approval is often denied. Even when the approval is
granted, the BLM often limits the maintenance activity in a way that
dramatically increases costs and/or reduces the effectiveness of the
maintenance work and resulting management of the area.
Four Wilderness Study Areas were recommended for release to
multiple use because of significant needs for management of encroaching
western juniper into sagebrush-grass ecosystems. But, in the absence of
Congressional action, the management needs identified by BLM personnel
have been delayed by the same personnel for the past 17 years. The
continuing and escalating juniper encroachment has resulted in
deterioration of wildlife habitat, sensitive species habitat, watershed
function and productivity which continues in those Study Areas to this
day.
Even in those areas recommended by the BLM as suitable for
wilderness designation, the BLM has identified many needs for improved
management of multiple uses which must be implemented in order to
maintain and improve landscape scale ecosystem values. However, the BLM
interim management policy prohibits any such management. The expansion
and development of western juniper and resulting deterioration of
watershed function and landscape ecosystem values continues unabated.
Range improvements that would apply livestock grazing treatments in a
manner that increases the rate of watershed improvement on a landscape
scale are routinely prohibited in spite of the fact that such
improvements are allowable under the Wilderness Act and the extension
of that Act to BLM managed lands by FLPMA.
In the most recent Resource Management Plan completed by the BLM
for our County, issued in 1999, the BLM acknowledges that intensive
management is necessary on public lands lying within five study areas
covered by the 1986 Environmental Impact Study related to the Owyhee
Amended Wilderness Report. Sixty percent of these particular lands have
been recommended for non-wilderness because of the dramatic juniper
encroachment. Yet, to this date, no management action has been
initiated to address the juniper encroachment problem.
Since the early days of the prior Administration in Washington,
emphasis has been placed on riparian area improvement, restoration, and
protection. Each time we review an allotment evaluation in our County
we see the BLM emphasizing riparian condition. Yet, water developments
which could help immeasurably in riparian protection, are restricted
and denied in these Study Areas. A well which was put in prior to
commencement of the wilderness study in the Jack's Creek area of our
County, covered by the 1989 Environmental Impact Statement, still sits
today without a pump installed---representing potential for riparian
protection, stymied by BLM restrictions.
Let me tell you of a horrible example of how the BLM restrictively
limits riparian and ecological improvements. In the early 1990s,
ranchers who share an allotment in Owyhee County were granted
permission to build a riparian protection fence, part of which would be
in a Wilderness Study Area. But, the permission was so restrictive that
no one could reasonably have been expected to complete the fence under
the terms specified by the BLM. The ranchers were given only 4 days to
build a 3 mile fence in extremely rough terrain. Materials had to be
carried in on foot because no motorized equipment could be used in the
area. The ranchers requested that they be given more time, but the BLM
refused, insisting that the fence had to be completed in its entirety
within the four days.
John Fend of the BLM (who now holds a position in the Bureau in
D.C.) warned the ranchers that if the fence was not entirely completed
within the four days, the ranchers would have to remove those portions
which had been completed. A series of questions about leniency as to
the fourth day made it clear that the BLM had no intention that the
fence could be completed. The BLM position was crystal when Fend
replied ``no'' to the question ``If we have the whole fence completed,
but need to string one strand of wire 100 feet, can we do that on the
5th day?''
On the first of the allotted 4 days, the ranchers hand carried
posts and wire into the area, laying the supplies out along the three
mile fence course. Working from before dawn until after dark, the
ranchers could see that they would not be able to complete the task.
But, on day 2, before dawn, as they made their way to the fence
line, they saw their friends and neighbors streaming toward them. 32
men, women and children in this sparsely populated region, came with
wire stretchers, post pounders and other tools necessary to complete
the job. They had heard what the BLM had done, and were determined to
help make the improvement which would enhance the ecology of the
allotment.
With the help of their neighbors, the fence was completed at 6pm on
the fourth day. Just after the work was finished, John Fend called one
of the ranchers and told her that the work would have to stop because
the time was up. She told him that the work was completed, and he was
stunned by the news. It was obvious that the BLM had not expected that
the fence improvement could be made in the time allotted.
Shortly thereafter, an anti-grazing conservation group filed an
appeal of the decision to permit construction of the fence. Without
consulting the ranchers who had worked so hard with their neighbors'
help to meet the impossible terms, in fact without even advising them,
the BLM settled the appeal and told the ranchers the fence would have
to be removed.
BLM fire crews then went into the area, including the Wilderness
Study Area, with motorized vehicles and tore out the fence. They made
no attempt to even save the wire, balling it up so that it would
useless. The motorized vehicles damaged the resource. Ranchers have
pictures evidencing this travesty in the Wilderness Study Area.
The rigid interim management policy applied by the Idaho BLM to the
administrative wilderness study areas needing intensive management is
harmful to the environment, to viable multiple uses as mandated by
Congress and to the economic welfare of our citizens. The only
management options considered by the BLM within the administrative
wilderness study areas are prohibitions for recreational access and
elimination of livestock grazing. Ironically, proper management of
recreational uses and proper management of livestock grazing are the
most effective tools to preserve and enhance the landscape scale
ecosystem function in the unique areas of Owyhee County.
We believe that the rigid ``no touch'' management policy is
inconsistent with the legislative intent of Congress in passing the
Wilderness Act of 1964 and the wilderness section of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976. The House Committee Report as to the
Wilderness Act pointed out the importance of legislative, not
administrative, control of the wilderness areas:
A statutory framework for the
preservation of wilderness would permit long-range planning and
assure that no future administrator could arbitrarily or
capriciously either abolish wilderness areas that should be
retained or make wholesale designations of additional areas in
which use would be limited.''
The Committee Report also stated: ``Furthermore, by establishing
explicit legislative authority for wilderness preservation, Congress is
fulfilling its responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to exercise
jurisdiction over the public lands.''
The bill now under your consideration is consistent with, and will
implement, the intent of Congress stated in that Report. It will assure
that it is Congress, not an endless administrative policy, which will
mandate the designations and the uses of the land within those
designations. The Congressional intent in passing the Wilderness Act
was to exercise its constitutional responsibility for management of the
public lands, not leave that responsibility to administrators without
Congressional designation. ``America's Wilderness Protection Act'' will
implement that intent.
When Congress broadened the impact of the Wilderness Act to the BLM
lands by amending FLPMA in 1976, the legislative intent was the same as
that expressed in passing the Wilderness Act. The Committee Report
pointed out that Section 603 of FLPMA provided that administrative
recommendations as to wilderness designation would be submitted to
Congress ``for appropriate action''.
There is no evidence in the report that the Committee intended that
there be no action by Congress once the recommendation was received,
and that during the period of no Congressional action, the multiple
uses of the area would be rigidly curtailed. Rather, the Committee
foresaw ``appropriate action'' by Congress once a recommendation was
received.
The Committee Report even emphasized that the review process should
be expedited. The Report stated that the Committee ``expects the
Secretary to establish priorities in a manner which will expedite the
review process and which will cause minimum interference with existing
multiple use management of the public lands.'' ``America's Wilderness
Protection Act'' will expedite Congressional review of administrative
recommendations, and will assure that long delays and inaction will not
result in harm to the environment including the human element of the
environment.
The FLPMA Committee Report made it clear that Congress did not
intend for long Congressional delays to result in rigid restriction of
use. As to those areas recommended for wilderness, the Committee Report
pointed out that the Secretary would have authority to allow at least
minimum management improvements ``such as wildlife habitat and
livestock control improvements where needed for protection or
maintenance of the lands and their resources and for continuation of
their authorized uses.'' That authority has not been exercised in our
County. Through the many years since the recommendations were furnished
to Congress, permission for improvements has repeatedly been withheld.
Moreover, there is nothing in the Committee Report evidencing an
intent to allow the BLM to impose rigid use limitations even on those
study areas not recommended for wilderness designation. Yet, in our
County, management improvements have been denied in those areas which
the BLM determined to be unsuitable for wilderness designation.
``America's Wilderness Protection Act'' does not endanger
wilderness designations. It simply places a time limit for Congress to
act on the agency's recommendations. If Congress has not accepted a
recommendation to designate wilderness within the time limit set by the
Act, the ``wilderness study area'' is released so that management
actions can be taken to protect the ecology of the landscape. Timely
action by Congress will call for Congress to exercise its rightful
jurisdiction over use of the public lands as emphasized in the
Wilderness Act Committee Report in 1974. It will be Congress which sets
the parameters for use in the wilderness designations, and in all
others the multiple uses authorized by Congress will continue.
For purposes of resolving land use conflicts which are harmful to
our environment, for purposes of providing clear legislative guidance
as to the use of unique lands, we ask that you pass ``America's
Wilderness Protection Act''.
PROPOSAL:
There be established the Owyhee Landscape Conservation Center which
shall be operated to implement the Owyhee Initiative which is a
landscape-scale program to preserve the natural processes that create
and maintain a functioning, un-fragmented landscape supporting and
sustaining a flourishing community of multiple uses, to preserve
economically viable livestock grazing, and to preserve and protect
cultural resources.
The Owyhee Landscape Conservation Center shall be operated under
the direction of the Owyhee Scientific Management Review Team, in
coordination with the land grant University of Idaho.
The OSMRT shall be made up of representatives of the University of
Idaho, conservation groups, county and state government, the Bureau of
Land Management and Federal management and research agencies, livestock
grazing industry, recreation groups, and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes
selected by the Owyhee Initiative Work Group which shall also identify
the qualifications for membership on the OSMRT. When the member
organizations have been chosen by the Owyhee Initiative Work Group, the
organizations may submit nominations of persons who meet the
established qualifications. From the nominees the Initiative Work Group
shall select the members of OSMRT to serve staggered two and three year
terms. The Chair of the Owyhee Scientific Management Review Team shall
be a representative of the University of Idaho.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Next up is the honorable Doug Thompson from
the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Welcome, Doug, and
please begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. DOUGLAS THOMPSON, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF
ASSOCIATION AND PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, LANDER, WYOMING
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my
name is Doug Thompson. I would like to thank the Committee for
the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4620. My wife and I own and
operate Myers Land and Cattle Company, with the help of my
daughter and son-in-law. Our ranch is in south central Wyoming
and is a third-generation ranch with fourth generation
preparing to take the reins. I am the past Chairman of the
Wyoming State Grazing Board and serve as a Fremont County
commissioner. Today I speak on behalf of the National Public
Lands Council and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
H.R. 4620 is most timely in nature, most urgently needed.
There must be a resolution to the wilderness study issue and
now is the time to act. We agree with section 2, two statements
are particularly important. First, ``wilderness study area
status was not intended as a substitute for wilderness
designation by Congress.'' The other, ``it was not the
intention of Congress that areas continue under wilderness
study areas status indefinitely.'' Current practice contradicts
both these findings. Since Congress alone has the authority to
create wilderness without congressional action, wilderness
study areas will continue indefinitely and land management
agencies will continue to create de facto wilderness. We agree
that all wilderness study areas should either be designated
wilderness or returned to multiple use status and that the
perpetuation of wilderness study area status is undesirable.
Over the course of time, successive Federal land managers
have taken more and more restrictive possessions on permitted
activities. Activities originally allowed under FLPMA have
become prohibited or extremely restricted. Ranchers and energy
companies in Wyoming and across the west are finding ever-
increasing restrictions and difficulties on exercising their
valid existing rights and permitted use.
We agree that section 3's timetable for wilderness study
completion provides appropriate and adequate options for
resolution of the wilderness study area situation. For over 25
years, the BLM has placed over 26 million acres in wilderness
study areas. Only 36 percent of this acreage was even
recommended for wilderness designation. Nearly 17 million acres
were not recommended as wilderness but continued to be managed
under the most restrictive land use status possible, that of a
wilderness study area. The result is a severe negative impact
on our economies, school funding, basic services because of the
loss of multiple use and the associated revenue.
We agree that a maximum time limit must be established to
prevent continuing non-action. The 10-year limit is most
generous, but a shorter timeframe is more appropriate,
considering that some wilderness study areas have been in place
for over 25 years. As Congress designates wilderness, we ask
that you bear in mind what the general public really believes
wilderness is. There is a wide gap between wilderness as
envisioned by the wilderness advocates and the wilderness
expectations of the general public. For the first group, only
nonuse locked up areas will satisfy, while the second group
simply wants access and reasonable use of our nation's pristine
natural beauty.
Concerning subsequent wilderness study areas, the authority
to designate wilderness study areas under section 603 has long
since expired. Any authority under sections 201 and 202 is
restricted to lands acquired by the BLM through gift sale,
exchange or transfer. Lands previously determined not suitable
for wilderness study areas should not be reevaluated.
Reevaluation drains valuable resources which are needed for
ongoing management actions. We agree with section 3 that areas
released from wilderness study area status should be not be
studied again. These lands should be returned to multiple use
until a subsequent land use planning process determines a long-
term status. Further, the BLM should be mandated to restore,
reauthorize any activity such as AUM reductions, improvements
or access roads that were restricted solely as a result of
wilderness study area designation.
In closing, I have three attachments I would like to have
part of this testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions
and thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Radanovich. Is there any objection to those attachments
being included in the record? Hearing none so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Statement of Douglas L. Thompson, Wyoming Rancher and Fremont County
Commissioner, Representing the National Public Lands Council and
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Resources: I testify
on Congressman Otter's bill, H.R. 4620, entitled ``America's Wilderness
Protection Act.'' Allow me to begin with a short introduction of
myself. My name is Douglas L. Thompson. I own and operate Myers Land
and Cattle Company, a cattle ranch in south central Wyoming along the
Sweetwater River on Beaver Rim. This is a third generation ranch with
the fourth generation preparing to take the reins. My background
includes a BA degree in Business and Math Education. I have served in
numerous leadership positions in both community and industry related
activities, such as:
Past President-Fremont County Cattleman's Association
Past Vice-president-Wyoming Stock Growers Association
Current President-Lander District Grazing Board
Past Chairman-Wyoming State Grazing Board
Fremont County School District 9 Trustee-20 years
Past President-Wyoming School Boards Association
4-H Leader-20 years
Currently, I am in my second year as a Fremont County Commissioner,
serving as our county's representative on the Interdisciplinary Team
for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Planning process, having
been granted Cooperating Agency status with special expertise in
grazing and socio-economics. This varied and diverse background has
enabled me to view the current wilderness situation from many different
perspectives.
Today, I speak as a representative of the National Public Lands
Council and National Cattleman's Beef Association. I am a member of
each of these organizations and serve as a Wyoming representative to
the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Federal Lands Committee and
serve as a Wyoming representative on the National Public Lands Council
Board of Directors. Also, the National Association of County Officials
endorses my testimony.
This bill H.R. 4620 is most timely in nature and most urgently
needed. There must be some resolution to the Wilderness Study Area
issue and now is the time to act.
We fully agree with Section 2 Findings and Purpose. Two statements
are particularly important. Section 2 (3) states, ``Wilderness Study
Area status was not intended as a substitute for wilderness designation
by Congress,'' and Section 2 (4) states, ``It was not the intention of
Congress that areas continue under Wilderness Study Area status
indefinitely.'' Current practice contradicts both of these findings.
Since Congress alone has authority to create wilderness, without
Congressional action Wilderness Study Areas will continue indefinitely
and land management agencies will continue to create de facto
wilderness-more land in Wilderness Study Area status.
We further agree with subsection (4) that all Wilderness Study
Areas should either be designated wilderness or released back to
multiple-use status and that the ``perpetuation of Wilderness Study
Area status is undesirable.'' Over the course of time, successive
Federal land managers have taken more restrictive positions on
permitted activities in Wilderness Study Areas. Activities originally
given exceptions under FLPMA Section 603c to the non-impairment
standard (grand fathered uses) have become prohibited or extremely
restricted use. One rancher in our county lost the grazing use of 9000
acres in his allotment when the area manager decided that grazing was
not appropriate for the Wilderness Study Area. Another rancher is
currently litigating a situation where he was originally allowed to
maintain reservoirs in a Wilderness Study Area in his grazing
allotment, but now the BLM is trying to deny him the ability to fulfill
the maintenance obligations in the terms and conditions of his grazing
permit. Energy companies in the Jack Morrow Hills are finding ever-
increasing restrictions and stipulations on exercising their valid
existing leases in current Wilderness Study Areas. Perpetuation of
Wilderness Study Area status is certainly undesirable.
We agree that Section 3 Timetable for Wilderness Study Completion
provides appropriate and adequate options for resolution of Wilderness
Study Area Status. Section 3 (a)(1) is especially important. For over
25 years the BLM has placed over 26 million acres nationwide in
Wilderness Study Area status.
However, according to a 1993 GAO report, only 36.2% of this acreage
was recommended for wilderness designation. 63.8% or 16,785,826 million
acres that were NOT recommended by the Secretary of Interior as
Wilderness have continued to be managed by the BLM in the most
restrictive land status possible-Wilderness Study Area status.
The result is a severe negative impact to our economies, schools,
and basic services caused by the loss of multiple-use options and
revenue. These 17 million acres could have been used by recreation
enthusiasts, people with disabilities, senior citizens, and others
whose use is excluded by Wilderness Study Area status. The
recommendations of de facto non-use by the Federal land management
agencies needs to be acted upon by Congress.
We agree that a maximum time limit must be established to prevent
continuing non-action on this subject. We believe that the 10-year
limit in Section 3 (a)(2) is most generous, but feel that a shorter
time frame is more appropriate, considering that some Wilderness Study
Areas have been in place for over 25 years. Whether it is 10 years or a
shorter period, it is critically important to the final resolution to
this situation to set a maximum time limit for action.
We would ask that as Congress designates wilderness as referred to
in Section 3 (a)(3) that the decision makers bear in mind what the
general public believes wilderness is. There is a wide gap between
wilderness as envisioned by the wilderness advocates and the wilderness
expectations of the general public.
For the first group, only a no-use, locked-up area will satisfy;
while the second group simply wants access and reasonable use of our
nation's pristine natural beauty.
Concerning Section 3 (b) Subsequent Wilderness Study Areas, it is
the position of the organizations represented by this testimony that
authority to designate Wilderness Study Areas under Section 603 of
FLPMA has long since expired; and that any authority conveyed under
Sections 201 and 202 of FLPMA is restricted to lands acquired by the
BLM through gift, sale, exchange, or transfer since the 603 process was
completed. Lands previously determined not suitable for Wilderness
Study Area status should not be re-evaluated in any subsequent planning
process. Such re-evaluation would prove costly, time-consuming, and a
drain on valuable resources which are needed for ongoing management
actions.
We agree in Section 3(c) Release from Wilderness Study Area Status
that areas released should not be studied again. However, we believe
that lands should be released back to multiple-use status until a
subsequent land use planning process determines a long-term status for
such lands.
In closing, I would relate two examples that clearly point to the
necessity of crafting and implementing a resolution to the Wilderness
Study Area situation.
First, in 1986 the BLM produced a document entitled ``Wilderness
Study Areas and Wilderness-Questions and Answers About Domestic
Livestock and Wildlife Management.'' This document paints a picture of
accommodation and consideration of existing uses. For example,
equipment and vehicles could be used for maintenance, livestock
facilities, and fences. Also, water development could occur, and
wildlife management practices could be done on a case-by-case basis.
All this has changed over time and a strict non-impairment, non-use
standard appears to be the practice of the day.
Secondly, an article by Bill Sizer with John Carr entitled ``The
Trouble with Wilderness'' points out the gap between the rhetoric and
the reality relating to the Arizona Fish and Game Department's
management activities in wilderness areas. In the article, examples of
land managements agency's efforts to thwart legitimate wildlife
research, law-enforcement activities, and habitat management reveal the
real consequences of not resolving the wilderness issue.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 4620.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Rick Johnson, welcome to the Committee
from the Idaho Conservation Association. And please begin your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF RICK JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, IDAHO
CONSERVATION LEAGUE, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. Rick Johnson. Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on H.R. 4620. It is a pleasure to see Mr. Otter from Idaho and
a colleague from Owyhee County.
For the past 8 years, I have been executive director of the
Idaho Conservation League. We work to protect and restore
Idaho's water, wild lands and wildlife, do public education,
citizen action and professional advocacy. Our organization is
nearly 30 years old, has three offices in Idaho, and we are the
State's largest conservation group.
I have been involved in every legislative wilderness
discussion in the State of Idaho one way or another since the
River of No Return bill passed in 1980. I have more than a
passing familiarity with Idaho's wilderness. In fact, my first
appearance before this Committee was to testify on wilderness
issues was in 1984. And Mr. Larry Craig was occupying the seat
now held by Mr. Otter.
There are unprecedented opportunities to advance wilderness
bills throughout the west and also in Idaho and for this reason
and others we oppose this bill. Idaho has over 4 million acres
of designated wilderness and another 10 million or so acres
that are unprotected. Wilderness is an identifying feature of
our incredibly beautiful State. Idaho is, in fact, the
wilderness State. And many Idahoans are very, very proud of
this. Yet in rural Idaho today, as throughout much of the west,
the impact of a shrinking economy and urbanization are creating
real pains. There is no denying that. Counties and communities
are looking for a villain and ``procedurally locked up,''
roadless land is frequently it. That is a false accusation. The
economic and demographic forces impacting rural Idaho are far
greater than any administrative procedures impacting Idaho's
roadless lands.
Further rural Idaho is being presented with a false hope of
some holy grail of riches that would come from prospective
development of the wildlands that an ever-growing segment of
Idaho would like to see protected. If these lands were valuable
for development, the economic forces for that development would
have long ago been more clear and successful in articulating a
vision for these lands.
This bill assumes wilderness bills need a new catalyst. We
disagree. If a catalyst is needed, let it be what it has always
been, leadership from Members of Congress. Successful
wilderness bills result from a synergy between Members of
Congress and involved interest groups who do the hard work of
building compromise and common ground. Members of Congress can
assemble the interest groups, convene the meetings, and use
your leadership to create the package. That H.R. 4620 now
originates in Idaho I find perplexing.
To the best of my knowledge, Representative Otter has not
attempted to write a wilderness bill or assemble the
appropriate interest groups to create one. On the other hand,
Representative Simpson has spoken to our organization a number
of times about a variety of issues, including wilderness
potential for the Boulder White Clouds in Idaho's second
district. We have a working relationship and his office has
convened a subset of interest groups on this subject as
recently as just last week.
Idaho's Senator Crapo is similarly involved in good faith
direct discussions involving interest groups on the wilderness
issue and other concerns in the Owyhee Canyon lands. This has
been going on for more than 9 months. In fact, the development
on that recently is that the Owyhee Cattlemen's Association has
now developed its own wilderness proposal as part of the
discussion, a very positive development.
My staff is talking with staff from Senator Crapo and
Representative Simpson's office regularly about wilderness and
related issues of a constant basis. This is how we will get the
job done. I am similarly perplexed that Idaho's delegation,
long critical of Federal land agencies, would now advance
legislation so based on a Federal agency's recommendation. I
suspect a round effort to undercut the wilderness movement is,
in fact, the intent behind the bill. That is unfortunately
because it only fosters the wedges between rural and urban
Idaho that we should all be working to bridge. And doing so
fosters entirely unrealistic expectations for rural Idaho.
I once helped lead nationality level campaigns for a
national conservation group. I assure you that H.R. 4620 will
be fought hard by the environmental community. Ironically for
the sponsors, I believe this fight will strengthen the national
wilderness movement by providing a cause to rally around. I am
also troubled that national environmental--anti environmental
exposure only hurts Idaho's already beleaguered reputation.
Also fighting this bill will hurt the good faith wilderness
discussions already underway in Idaho.
Politically speaking, Idaho is well positioned with the
House and Senate administration. This presents an opportunity
to craft a bill that has true Idaho approved identity to it
with a minimum of outside interference. Just as it took the
established conservative credentials of Nixon to create a
relationship with China, it will take the conservative
credentials of western republicans to successfully advance
wilderness in Idaho. But unlike past attempts, we must approach
the resource and each other with a level respect. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Rick Johnson follows:]
Statement of Rick Johnson, Executive Director, Idaho Conservation
League
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on H.R. 4620. It is a
pleasure to see my friends in the Idaho House delegation.
For the past eight years I have been the executive director of the
Idaho Conservation League. We work to protect and restore Idaho's
water, wildlands, and wildlife of Idaho through public education,
citizen action, and professional advocacy. Our organization is nearly
30 years old, has three offices in Idaho, and we are the state's
largest conservation group.
Idaho has not passed a wilderness bill since 1980. In that time
there have been several attempts led by members of the Idaho
delegation, but none have reached this Committee in well over a decade.
As a citizen activist, as a public lands lobbyist for the Sierra
Club for eight years, and as staff of the Idaho Conservation League for
a total of ten years, I have been involved in every legislative
wilderness discussion in the state of Idaho since the River of No
Return bill passed in 1980. I have more than a passing familiarity with
Idaho's wilderness. My first appearance before this Committee to
testify on wilderness issues was in 1984.
Getting a wilderness bill passed through Congress and signed by the
president is very hard. You know better than I that passing any
legislation is hard, but wilderness bills have a history of being
particularly challenging in the West.
That said, I believe we have unprecedented opportunities to advance
wilderness bills throughout the West and also in Idaho. While I have
current and past experience with the national wilderness issues, I will
limit my testimony to Idaho.
First, let me set the stage. Idaho is the Wilderness State. With
over 4 million acres for designated wilderness and another 10 million
or so acres that are unprotected, Wilderness is an identifying feature
of our incredibly beautiful state. Twenty-one of the unprotected areas
in Idaho are over 100,000 acres in size. To those familiar with
wilderness issues, this is a remarkable statistic.
In rural Idaho today, as throughout much of the West, the impact of
shrinking economies and urbanization are creating real pain. Counties
are looking for a villain, and ``procedurally locked up'' roadless land
is frequently it.
That is a false accusation. The economic and demographic forces
impacting rural Idaho are far greater than any administrative
procedures impacting Idaho's roadless lands.
Further, rural Idaho is being presented with a false hope for some
Holy Grail of riches that would come from prospective development of
the wildlands that an ever growing segment of Idaho would like to see
protected. If these lands were valuable for development, the economic
forces for that development would have long ago been more clear and
successful in articulating a vision for these lands. Again, there are
no barriers to development on many of these unprotected lands. Yes,
Wilderness Study Areas retain barriers to development, but that is a
minority of the undesignated lands in Idaho, and they became WSAs, in
part, due to an absence of economic value.
I provide a review of the numerical impacts of H.R. 4620 and Idaho
Conservation League wilderness recommendations as an attachment at the
end of my written testimony, but history has clearly shown that when
wilderness issues are reduced to numbers, everyone on all sides lose
touch with what the real issues are.
My main point is that this bill is unnecessary, and casts a
troublesome cloud on the opportunity before us in Idaho.
1. LThis bill assumes wilderness bills need a new catalyst. We
disagree. If a catalyst is needed, let it be what it has always been:
leadership from members of Congress. Successful wilderness bills result
from a synergy between members of Congress and involved interest groups
who do the hard work of building compromise and common ground. So what
you can do as members of Congress is to assemble the interest groups,
convene the meeting, and use your leadership to create the package.
That H.R. 4620 now originates in Idaho I find perplexing. To the
best of my knowledge, Rep. Otter has never attempted to write a
wilderness bill or assemble the appropriate interest groups to create
one. On the other hand, Rep. Simpson has spoken to our organization a
number of times about a variety of issues including wilderness
potential for the Boulder White Clouds in Idaho's Second District. We
have a working relationship, and his office convened a subset of
interest groups on this subject just last week. Idaho's Sen. Crapo is
similarly involved in good faith, direct discussions involving interest
groups on the wilderness issue and other concerns in the Owyhee
Canyonlands, and this has been going on for more than nine months.
My staff is talking with staff from Sen. Crapo and Rep. Simpson
about wilderness and related issues on a regular basis, to do the hard
work to achieve real solutions that include all interests. This is how
we'll get the job done.
We don't need this bill in order to do the work Idaho needs to do
to resolve wilderness issues. The Idaho delegation members who are
interested are already engaged in trying to break the legislative
logjam that has held this issue up for years.
2. LH.R. 4620 places a huge amount of weight on the appropriateness
of BLM Wilderness Study Areas and USFS wilderness recommendations.
I am similarly perplexed that Idaho's delegation--long critical of
Federal land agencies--would now advance legislation so fundamentally
based on BLM and U.S. Forest Service wilderness recommendations and
WSAs. The Idaho Conservation League has grave problems with the BLM and
USFS wilderness recommendations, and I am sure you do as well, though
perhaps for different reasons.
These recommendations should play a consultative role in wilderness
designation processes, but we all know that Congress is the final
arbiter. Again, a legitimate wilderness process requires active
engagement of members of Congress, not some artificial hammer.
3. LFinally, H.R. 4620 is a major challenge to the wilderness
movement of the entire United States.
I suspect an effort to undercut the wilderness movement is the
intent of this bill. That is unfortunate, because that only fosters the
wedges between rural and urban Idahoans we should all be working to
bridge, and by doing so this bill fosters entirely unrealistic
expectations for rural Idaho. Further, as we all know, it is easy to
stall or never start a legislative process, so this bill by intent, is
prejudiced against wilderness protection.
This bill will not pass because it is a fundamental assault on the
historic and ultimately fair processes for advancing wilderness
protection.
I once helped lead national-level campaigns for a national
conservation group. I assure you H.R. 4620 will be fought hard by the
environmental community. Ironically for the sponsors, I believe this
fight will strengthen the national wilderness movement by providing a
cause to rally around.
Over many years, in individual bills, Congress has debated and
generally rejected ``release language'' as a trade off for designated
wilderness. This bill releases lands regardless of designations; there
isn't even a proposed trade-off.
I am also troubled that national anti-environmental exposure only
hurts Idaho's already beleaguered reputation. Also, fighting this bill
would hurt the good-faith wilderness discussions already underway in
Idaho today, and in the future.
Summary
This bill is not needed. Idaho and the nation needs to move forward
on wilderness issues, but that requires leadership not drop-dead
deadlines. It requires a spirit of compromise and it requires a respect
for the land. This bill demonstrates neither.
Wilderness protection is a well-established purpose of our public
lands. Arbitrarily cutting off any and all consideration of future
Wilderness designations makes no more sense than saying that all lands
now not being logged should forever be banned from consideration for
logging.
This is a great time to advance wilderness bills in Idaho the old-
fashioned way.
Politically speaking, Idaho is well positioned with the
House, Senate, and administration. This presents an opportunity to
craft a bill that has a true Idaho-approved identity to it, with a
minimum of outside interference, yet still retains a high likelihood of
passing Congress and being signed by the President.
A. LJust as it took the established conservative credentials of
Nixon to establish a relationship with China, it will take the
conservative credentials of Western Republicans to successfully advance
wilderness issues in Idaho. But unlike past attempts, we all must
approach the resource and each other with a level of respect.
B. LThere is a motivated and increasingly sophisticated
conservation community ready to get to work. The Idaho Conservation
League is very closely involved in two processes right now to advance
wilderness bills in Idaho, both engage the Idaho congressional
delegation, and both could succeed. Success in either place will do far
more to break the wilderness legislative logjam for Idaho.
Politics are the art of the possible, and wilderness bills pass
because of successful engagement of politics. Let's do it, and that
means putting aside H.R. 4620.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
H.R. 4620 and Idaho public lands 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Source: The Wilderness Society, Idaho Regional Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bureau of land management (blm lands)
Idaho has roughly 11.9 million acres of BLM lands. Only 1.8 million
of those lands are managed as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The BLM
has only recommended half of these lands (972,239 acres) to be
designated as wilderness. Only 802 acres of BLM lands are officially
designated as wilderness in Idaho.
Conservation groups consider the both the BLM wilderness
recommendations and the WSAs themselves to be inadequate. The Idaho
Conservation League supports the Idaho Citizen's Desert Wilderness
Proposal. This is a 3,420,000 acres proposal on BLM lands. This
proposal also recommends that 590,000 additional acres be studied for
eligibility for wilderness designation.
U.S. Forest Service Lands
Idaho's National Forests contain 1,292,006 acres that have been
recommended by the Forest Service to be designated as wilderness. H.R.
4620 would give only 10 years time for resolution of bills before all
these lands would be released from further consideration as wilderness.
Conservation groups have long considered USFS wilderness
recommendations to be woefully inadequate. The Idaho Conservation
League supports a minimum of 6 of the 9 million acres of remaining
roadless areas in the National Forests of Idaho be designated as
wilderness. The remaining lands should remain undeveloped, unroaded,
and wild in character.
______
Mr. Radanovich. Next up is Mr. Don Barry, executive Vice
President of the Wilderness Society. Don, welcome and please
begin your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DONALD BARRY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, WILDERNESS
SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Barry. With your permission, I would like to request
that my written statement be submitted for the record and I
would like to just make a few oral comments.
Mr. Radanovich. That would be just fine. There is no
objection here.
Mr. Barry. I would also like your permission to submit for
the record on behalf of the Nevada wilderness coalition some
comments that they also have on the bill.
Mr. Radanovich. No objection. So ordered.
Mr. Barry. I am testifying on behalf of the Wilderness
Society and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in strong
opposition to H.R. 4620. H.R. 4620 is called the America's
Wilderness Protection Act. But after close to 30 years of
working on Federal land conservation activities in this town, I
am hard pressed to think of another bill that would have as
sweeping and an adverse effect on wilderness quality public
lands as H.R. 4620.
I would like to lay out five reasons why I think passage of
H.R. 4620 would be a terrible blow to the wilderness heritage
of this country. First, we strongly disagree that Congress
never intended WSAs to have indefinite protected status.
Section 603(c) of FLPMA expressly states that ``during the
period of the review of such areas and until Congress
determines otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to manage
such lands according to his authority under FLPMA and the
applicable law and in a manner so as to not impair the
suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness.''
We interpret 603(c) as making it very clear that Congress
wanted the Secretary to maintain the environmental status quo
indefinitely for WSAs so as to maximize and preserve
congressional options. And I should just note too, Mr.
Chairman, that I worked for the Merchant Marine Fisheries
Committee for 6 years in this hearing room. During that time
when I was working for the Chairman of the Committee, we always
worked to try to maximize congressional options and we worked
hard to maintain congressional prerogatives. I think that is
what we read into 603: an attempt to maintain the options for
Congress to go one way or the other and to not lose those
options by administrative action in the interim.
The second reason we are opposed to this bill is that
despite strong concerns that we had about the predecessor bill
in the last Congress, H.R. 1500, we believe that the adverse
impacts of H.R. 4620 are much more sweeping because it is not
limited in scope to just the Bureau of Land Management as H.R.
1500 was.
H.R. 4620, we believe, would lift interim WSA protection
from as much as 50 million acres of public lands in our
national parks, national wildlife refuges, national forests and
Bureau of Land Management lands. All you need to do is to look
at the impact alone on the national park system to get an idea
why we are particularly concerned about this bill. The
definition of a wilderness study area is so broad in section
(3)(d) of the bill that we believe that it could erase interim
protection for over 25 million acres of park land including
acreage in such icons as Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Teton,
the Great Smokies and the Everglades.
The Wildlife Refuge System wouldn't fair much better. In
the lower 48 states, over 2 million acres are currently
recommended for wilderness designation in 21 national wildlife
refuges. These areas could have their interim protection and
interim protective management removed under the terms of this
bill. I should note that these 2 million acres and the 21
affected wildlife refuges were recommended for wilderness by
Presidents Nixon and Ford, hardly environmental extremists.
The third reason that we are troubled by H.R. 4620 is
because of the hard release provisions that it contains. By
``hard release,'' we mean that once an area has been released
from further consideration as a wilderness study area, it could
never again be studied for inclusion in the wilderness system.
Congress has repeatedly rejected similar hard release
provisions and has never adopted it in wilderness legislation
and we think for good reason. Here's an example of where a
``hard release'' wouldn't make any sense and just wouldn't
work. Congress has, over the decades, created the concept of
``potential wilderness'' in the context of park wilderness
legislation. With potential wilderness, what you have is a
situation where they will be designating a large area within a
national park as wilderness, but where there may be a
nonconforming activity or use in one particular part of the
park.
What Congress will do in this situation is to punch the
hole of the donut out of the original proposal. They will go
ahead and designate the whole area as wilderness, but they will
designate the hole as ``potential wilderness.'' As ``potential
wilderness'' the hole becomes automatically upgraded to full-
blown wilderness status, if you will, at such time as the
nonconforming use is ended.
Under the terms of this bill, and under the definition of a
``wilderness study area'' in section (3)(d) which applies to
potential wilderness areas, even though Congress may have
passed a law clearly signaling its intention that a given
``potential wilderness'' area automatically shall become
wilderness as soon as the nonconforming use has ceased, because
of the hard release provision of this bill, if after the
passage of 10 years the nonconforming use has not yet been
eliminated, that area loses its ``wilderness'' status and can
never again be considered for formal designation even though
Congress already passed a law acknowledging its wilderness
quality status in the park.
That is an example of where the breadth of the bill
covering park areas and the breadth of the definition involving
hard releases causes serious problems.
We are also troubled in particular by the provision that
would allow secretaries of the Interior or Agriculture on their
own determination to deactivate past wilderness study areas. I
know I have run out of time, but I will just note that our last
concern that we have with the sponsor's explanation of this
bill is with their claim that these wilderness study areas
should not be studied in perpetuity and that it is time to
bring a close to these studies. It has been pointed out before
the problem is not the breadth or length of the wilderness
studies. These areas have been studied and the studies are
complete. The problem lies with Congress, quite frankly, in
being unable to reach a consensus on where these wilderness
areas ought to go.
So in summary, we believe that expediting wilderness
designations is the correct way to resolve these issues. We too
have appreciated the efforts and leadership coming out of
Owyhee County in trying to reach a consensus on wilderness. The
people in our Idaho office have been very actively involved and
were highly complimentary of the efforts of the commissioners
in that county in initiating this effort. We believe as does
the Idaho Conservation League that that is how we will reach a
resolution of these issues, and eventually get wilderness acts
passed. Last Congress designated and enacted over a million
acres of wilderness areas, and we think that is the way to go.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Barry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barry follows:]
Statement of Donald J. Barry, Executive Vice-President, The Wilderness
Society
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Don Barry,
and I am Executive Vice-President of The Wilderness Society. The
Wilderness Society is devoted to preserving wilderness and wildlife,
protecting pristine areas of our nation's national forests, public
lands, national parks, and national wildlife refuge system, and
fostering an American land stewardship ethic. I thank you for the
opportunity today to testify in opposition to H.R. 4620, the
erroneously titled ``America's Wilderness Protection Act,'' on behalf
of The Wilderness Society and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. I
say erroneously titled, because far from protecting America's
wilderness, the bill would result in the hands-off, automatic pilot,
permanent release from wilderness consideration, and in most cases
interim protection, of tens of millions of acres of public lands,
national forests, national park lands, and lands within national
wildlife refuges that deserve wilderness designation by Congress.
It is difficult to understand an appropriate rationale for this
legislation. Though its ``findings'' suggest that ``wilderness is
beneficial,'' the clear result of the bill's enactment would be that
very few areas of our national interest lands deserving wilderness
designations would ever be so designated. Perhaps proponents of the
bill are philosophically opposed to with the idea of wilderness. I
would hope that is not the case. But in case it is, a word or two about
the benefits of wilderness designation, I think, is warranted here.
These benefits include protection of: habitat for diverse native plant
and wildlife species; reservoirs of pure air and clean water; some of
America's most spectacular, pristine, distinctive, and awe-inspiring
natural landscapes; vast opportunities for outdoor recreation
activities, such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, climbing,
horseback riding, horse packing, and river-running; scientific
research; and the increasingly rare opportunity to find solitude and
escape from the daily pressures of our dynamic and expanding urban
society. In fact, we need more wilderness protected in America, not
less, as H.R. 4620 would assure.
The Federal land management agencies are currently required to give
interim protection to certain areas of the Federal lands that have been
studied for possible wilderness designation by Congress, and to manage
these areas in a manner that does not impair their wilderness
characteristics pending a final Congressional determination regarding
their wilderness status. The reason for this process is simple: once a
wilderness is gone, it is gone forever.
Under Sec. 3(a) of H.R. 4620, however, over 8.8 million acres of
Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) (as defined in
Sec. (3)(d) of the bill) in 10 states would immediately lose their WSA
status upon enactment, without Congress having considered the specific
merits of their wilderness attributes. (see attachment)
Furthermore, once these lands were released from WSA status, the
land management agencies would be barred by Sec. 3(c) from ever
studying them for potential wilderness designation again. This
unprecedented ``hard release'' language has never been accepted in any
bills passed by Congress, and should not be accepted by this Committee
now.
With respect to WSAs that have been recommended for wilderness
designation by a land management agency, the adverse consequences of
this bill are obvious, even to the affected Federal land management
agencies themselves. As the Bureau of Land Management stated in its
testimony in opposition to similar legislation introduced during the
106th Congress, the bill `` would create a timetable that would
virtually guarantee wilderness areas would not be designated.'' Why?
Because under
Sec. 3(a)(2), wilderness opponents would merely have to prevent
Congressional action on pending agency wilderness recommendations for
10 years, at which time the interim protection afforded such areas
would expire. Because such areas are ``hard released,'' under Sec. 3(c)
they could never be considered by the agency for potential wilderness
designation again. For example, within the National Park System 25
million acres of wilderness quality land could lose their protective
management status under this provision. (see attachment)
Moreover, Sec. 3(a)(1) provides new authority for the Secretaries
of Interior and Agriculture to terminate previous secretarial
recommendations for wilderness designation. This can occur merely if a
Secretary ``determines'' that a WSA recommended for wilderness
designation by a previous Secretary is no longer ``suitable'' for
wilderness designation. This is a blank check to the Secretaries to
make arbitrary and capricious decisions to rescind a previous
Secretary's action with no required study, no process, no compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act or other applicable
statutes, and no consultation with the general public.
Perhaps there is a perception on the part of some of the bill's
proponents that Congress is not capable of moving forward on a positive
wilderness designation agenda. In fact Congress has demonstrated slow
but steady progress on the issue of wilderness designation, and should
not shrink from the task now. For example, the 106th Congress
eventually designated 1,016,753 acres of wilderness in the states of
Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Virginia. There are certainly plenty of
opportunities for this Subcommittee to far exceed the accomplishments
of the 106th Congress, as outlined below.
Accordingly, we recommend that this Committee discontinue its
consideration of H.R. 4620, since it clearly has no prospect for
passage. A far more productive approach would be for the Subcommittee
to roll up its sleeves and approve comprehensive wilderness bills. This
would include a number of legitimate wilderness bills that have either
been introduced and referred to this Committee already, or which, we
understand, will be introduced in the near future. For example, for
several years now versions of H.R. 1613, ``America's Red Rock
Wilderness Act,'' have been introduced in the House, garnered
substantial support from Members of both political parties (it
currently has 162 co-sponsors), but has never even received a hearing
in this forum. Another comprehensive bill, H.R. 4468, the ``Colorado
Wilderness Act'', has also been introduced in various forms over the
years, but it has not received a hearing here, either. Yet another
opportunity is H.R. 4644, the ``Wild Sky Wilderness Act,'' introduced
just last week. There are others and there will be more to come.
In conclusion, we urge the Subcommittee to oppose passage of H.R.
4620, and instead move forward with a positive wilderness designation
agenda. The best way to resolve wilderness issues is to pass wilderness
bills, to legislate. That is why your constituents sent you here, to
make tough legislative choices and to move positive legislative
agendas. We would be most willing to assist the Subcommittee in this
endeavor, as we have in the past. I look forward to your questions.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Barry's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.026
Mr. Radanovich. You mentioned the cooperation you had
gotten with Owyhee County. Describe to me what progress is. Mr.
Johnson, you recognize you mentioned that as well. What kind of
progress are you making? Chris, you had mentioned you are not
that far apart. So what are you all talking about here? Are you
coming up with something? What does it entail?
Mr. Rick Johnson. I think we both come at it from different
perspectives, so we both should answer. I think progress, first
off, this is all about politics. It might be small ``p''
politic, politics is about relationships. So first and
foremost, what has happened is some people that have previously
only gotten to know each other through sound bytes or through
quotes in, frankly, legal briefs are getting to know each other
around a table and relationships are being built, the kind of
relationships that actually lead to resolution of tough issues.
So first and foremost, we are getting to know each other.
After that, what we are doing is really getting to know
what we stand for, the issues that our organizations or our
constituencies or our communities are most concerned about, the
things that we support and frankly the things we fear. And by
getting to know those things, we start to understand why we are
wilderness advocates, why we support cattle operations in the
region, why we want to build a rural economy that lasts, we
reach common understanding. At the same time we aren't there
yet.
Mr. Radanovich. Interesting.
Mr. Salove. As a little bit of background, the Owyhee
initiative is a group formed by us. The idea actually goes back
a year ago or a little bit more. We brought together 12 groups,
all of which are users of the land. Everything from the United
States Air Force which has training ranges in Owyhee County to
conservation groups, both of these groups here. We basically
tried to include everyone that has an interest. There are
recreation groups, there are cattlemen's groups. The only
people that we excluded were the conservation groups such as
John Marble, who we felt had no interest in reaching
compromise.
The progress that we have all referred to is the fact that
now the representatives from these individual groups are to the
point that they are making proposals. They have been meeting
regularly, sitting down at a round table, if you will, talking
over issues, specific issues. They are now at the point that
each group is making proposals and finding out what each of the
others really wants out of this initiative process. Our hope as
commissioners is that this process will be resolved some place
other than, as Rick says, through legal sound bytes and briefs
in court which is where everything has been dealt with up to
this point and nothing has been solved.
We are hopeful that you will see representatives of the
commissioners of all of this group back here for legislative
action at some point, I would hope, within the next year.
Mr. Radanovich. Based on what you guys come up with.
Mr. Salove. Yes.
Mr. Radanovich. More power to you. I think that is great.
An example could be what was in forest service management in
California with what is known as the Quincy Library Group,
where a group of people got together, the local stakeholders
and put together a plan. That, boy, I think the more you do
that--you know, all vote for it. It is still not resolved yet,
though. It still is being caught up in bureaucratic red tape.
But they were able to take a plan and get it passed through
Congress and through the Senate. So I would encourage you.
Mr. Barry, in Yosemite, I was born and raised right next to
Yosemite. What part is wilderness? Is that up in the high
country? If you can't answer that, can you tell me why does a
national park benefit from a wilderness designation? DCMN MAYER
Mr. Barry. I can't tell you the exact area, but I will find
out for you. There are 3,550 acres in Yosemite that are
potential wilderness. It must be a nonconforming use, was
designated as potential wilderness at some particular time. I
can't give you the exact location though.
Mr. Radanovich. But why do you name a wilderness in a
national park?
Mr. Barry. It is interesting you should mention that.
I served as the Assistant Secretary over at the National
Park Service for 3-1/2 years. And I have to say that I spent a
lot of time in the back country of national parks on my own
vacation time even after I stepped down.
As I'd go from park to park to park, I frequently found
them entirely differently managed in the back country area from
one wilderness area to the next. And I think one of the reasons
that national parks benefit from having wilderness in them is
because, quite frankly, frequently you need to protect the
national parks sometimes from the National Park Service.
There have been--here's an example. In Glacier National
Park, when I went hiking, I came down an area called Goat
Haunt, and I was with the Chief Ranger of the Park Service at
the time. And this is an area where they have all their
livestock for having the trail crews work out of that area. He
was so proud of this stable that they had there.
I took one look at it. It was 5 feet from the major river
draining into Waterton Lake with Waterton National Park on the
Canadian side. You could see where the river bed went--it was
dry at the time. You could tell every time there was a heavy
rain, this creek bed went right under the stable, washed out
all of the manure right under the lake. The Park Service never
thought of it as a particular problem.
So merely because land is managed by the National Park
Service doesn't mean they are managing their areas in a
careful, responsible way.
There was a book that was put out by a park historian
called ``Preserving Nature in the National Park System,'' which
basically documents decades of poor land management decisions.
I think the Park Service should not be excluded from wilderness
park consideration, because people generally perceive they have
the highest management standards. The areas qualified as
wilderness in the back country, they ought to be managed as
wilderness and designated as wilderness, as such.
Mr. Radanovich. But it seems to me an issue like that could
be brought up in the park's management plan.
Mr. Barry. I am not disagreeing with that, Congressman. I
am just saying there is more wilderness in national parks--I
think about 44 million acres--than under any other Federal
agency. I think it just reflects the fact that the national
parks have some of the most beautiful topography in the country
in them. That is why people drive to Yosemite to go see the
back country and the high Sierras. I am sure that is an area
you have hiked in, too.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you very much.
Any other questions, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have a
question of this panel, but I am sure--after listening to Mr.
Barry, it reminds everyone who has ever been a cowboy that you
don't drink downstream of the herd.
Mr. Radanovich. Mr. Otter.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chris, thank you very much for coming to Washington, D.C. I
apologize for having you come to Washington, D.C., to go
through all this. And I want to congratulate you on the Owyhee
Initiative and your leadership in that. Make no mistake about
it, if you folks hadn't put that initiative together--the other
folks, other stakeholders, weren't part of that process until
you demonstrated the leadership, because--and I think the
reason that those who appear to be so concerned about the
multiple rate in development of pristine lands, it is not in
their best interest to arrive at decisions like this.
So I applaud you not only for your leadership, but for your
patience. Do you expect this to take 10 years before you come
up with some answers for the Owyhee Initiative?
Mr. Salove. This group would never allow it to take 10
years. We had hoped to have legislation ready in this calendar
year, and I am not sure we are going to get to that point. I
don't think there is any question everyone would lose heart and
the process would be dead if it took 10 years.
Mr. Otter. Mr. Johnson, do you think it will take 10 years
to arrive at a point of agreement for the Owyhee Initiative?
Mr. Rick Johnson. No, I don't. One of the key factors that
keeps all of us at the table is the political reality is that
we have the House, near parity in the Senate, the Idaho
delegation and the Administration-- all of one party. So this
presents a very good opportunity to move something forward.
I would say, however, that, as you well know, Idaho has a
lot of wilderness study areas and a lot of recommended
wilderness and a lot of roadless areas. So the entire process
of resolving these kinds of issues with the kind of work that
we are doing, where you sit at a table and talk this through,
that may well talk a lot more than 10 years.
Mr. Otter. Rick, you and I had discussions and some other
conversations before on other issues.
Mr. Rick Johnson. Oftentimes, sir, with utmost respect
about labels like ``whackos'' and ``obstructionists'' and
things like that.
Mr. Otter. You know, I feel the same way about politicians
and big mouths and otters and other endangered species.
But, Rick, you know, I have several times, in fact--you
know, it is not well known because I don't play it in the
newspaper, but I can't tell you how many trips on horseback
that we have made into the wilderness study areas and into the
Canyonlands, into Owyhee County.
But I formalized that when I became a Member of Congress,
and I invited the Idaho Conservation League. I invited quite a
few--Nature Conservancy; I also invited the cattlemen and the
off-road vehicle enthusiasts--only to ride a horse, not a four-
wheel.
And last year Dallas Gudgell from the Idaho Conservation
Association came with us, and he was quite enthused. Because we
purposely ride all day and spend the night around the
campfire--and there is magic about a campfire out there in the
desert--and then ride back the next morning.
You know, we saw eye to eye on a lot of things. And it is
unfortunate that he, so quickly after he took that trip, went
out of your employ, that I was--because I thought that we were
actually clicking, we were actually coming to some agreement on
what was important.
And I also think I diminished Dallas' idea of my 20-some
years of politics in Idaho, that I was one of these guys that
didn't care about wilderness, that I only wanted to develop
land and only wanted to graze it and only wanted to cut the
logs.
And so we renewed that process this year, and I guess there
is going to be an empty saddle around the fireplace because the
Idaho Conservation Association has since said that they are not
going to attend. And I don't know if that is because I am
attending or if it is because you are, but during your
testimony, it was suggested that I wasn't willing to listen. It
was suggested that I wasn't part of this collaborative process.
There was some suggestion made that, jeez, you didn't have any
trouble working with the rest of the delegation, but you had a
problem working with me.
I just want you to know right here in front of God and Mr.
Radanovich, I just want you to know that I do want to solve the
problems.
And as I said yesterday to the news media, I will be the
first to introduce the bill when the President brings it to our
attention. I think this legislation advances Congress'
attention as much as it does the rest of the stakeholders. But
I am not going to substitute my judgment, holding this
congressional seat for the collaboration that you folks are
making in Owyhee County.
I will guarantee you, when that bill comes up, I will be
its best champion because I know it is the result of a
collaborative effort and every stakeholder has had an
opportunity to have their stab at the fire.
So I make that commitment to you now. I would like to get
yours--I would like to fill that saddle up this weekend.
Mr. Rick Johnson. Part of the problem if I--if I could have
the opportunity to respond, part of the problem is that I
didn't find out about that opportunity to fill the saddle until
about a week ago. And my respective saddle is already
scheduled. So I cannot take care of that.
The rest of my staff--John McCarthy, who probably would be
most appropriate, who is sitting at the table at the Owyhee
Initiative day in and day out, also is predisposed, I believe,
because his son is graduating from high school.
But I stand ready absolutely to get to work in any number
of places. The Owyhee is just one of many.
Another example, we will go to the whole other end of the
district and say Long Canyon up in the panhandle. That is an
area that we could get to work on right now. I challenge us
both to sit down, and let's get the job done in Boundary
County, Idaho. I think it would be easy.
Mr. Otter. To make it work, we are going to have to have
Chris, I guess.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Otter. And I think, with
that, we are going to clear this panel, although I will say
that the next couple of panels are going to be regarding two
other bills that we are hearing today, so we are not going to
bring the discussion of this particular bill up.
I encourage those people that are working on this thing in
Idaho, if Butch sponsors it, I am an automatic cosponsor. So
keep working and bring something up, because this is--I think
the Congress yearns for something like this to happen. So
please keep up the good work.
Thank you very much for being here.
And I want to ask unanimous consent to include the
statement of Representative John Doolittle in the record today,
June 6, 2002. He could not be here and had some comments on
H.R. 4620.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 4620.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing on
an important piece of legislation, H.R. 4620. As you may be aware, I
also introduced a similar bill, H.R. 4589, The Wilderness Study Area
Release Act. Although the two bills differ slightly in the number of
years allotted for release and future study, both seek the same end
immediate release of Federally managed land for utilization by the
people of America.
As I am sure you are aware, both pieces of legislation are almost
identical to legislation Chairman Hansen introduced in the 106th
Congress. H.R. 4589 and H.R. 4620 will provide for definitive end-dates
to wilderness study area designations, thus ending one of the most
egregious and widespread land rights abuses of the Federal land
management agencies.
Wilderness study areas are intended to be short-lived designations,
which close off a specific portion of land to human activity and give
the agencies an opportunity to determine whether to recommend to
Congress that the land be officially designated as a permanent
wilderness area. Currently the system leaves the land closed off to
human use, including grazing and timber harvest, without congressional
approval.
My bill would automatically end wilderness study area designations,
which are more than 15 years old. Currently there are 665 such
designations, covering nearly 23 million acres exist in 18 states, the
bulk of which are in the western U.S., according to the Congressional
Research Service.
Furthermore, any subsequent wilderness study areas after the
enactment of H.R. 4589 must be determined to meet wilderness status no
later than five years after designation, unless Congress declares them
wilderness areas. All areas not declared official wilderness would
revert to multiple-use as defined by the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained-
Yield Act.
Mr. Chairman, it is of the utmost importance that these agencies
must no longer be allowed to deny the American people access to public
lands simply by ignoring Congress. Both H.R. 4589 and H.R. 4620 will
put an end to that practice.
Again, I would like to thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this
hearing. It is my hope the Committee will look favorably on wilderness
study reform legislation and mark it up as expeditiously as possible.
______
And then, with that, I will turn the gavel over to Mr.
Gibbons from Nevada to call the next panel.
Mr. Gibbons. [Presiding.] I want to thank Chairman
Radanovich. What I would like to do, before we start here, is
make a request, as the Chairman of the Committee and the only
person left, to combine these last two panels. I think they
both talk about the same two bills, and we would like to have
both Panel 4 and Panel 5 if we can, come up here and testify.
So, with that, we will ask Mr. Daniel Smith, Special
Assistant to the Director of the National Park Service,
Washington, D.C., to the table; Mr. Larry Finfer, Assistant
Director for Communications, Bureau of Land Management, United
States Department of Interior; Mr. Daniel Van Epp, President of
the Howard Hughes Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada; and Ms.
Crystal Altenbaumer, Executive Director of the William J.
Clinton Birthplace Home, Hope, Arkansas, to please be here.
Mr. Gibbons. With that, we will ask Mr. Smith--we welcome
you to the hearing. The floor is yours. We look forward to your
testimony. And I might also add that, for any of you, the
Committee will accept your full and complete statement into the
record. If you want to summarize your statement that is fine.
The floor is yours, Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL SMITH, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 3815, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of suitability and
feasibility of establishing a Presidential national historic
site in Hope, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
Mr. Chairman, the Department supports H.R. 3815; however,
the Department did not request additional funding for this
study in Fiscal Year 2003. Furthermore, we believe that any
funding requested should be directed toward completing
previously authorized studies. Presently, there are 37 studies
pending of which we hope to transmit at least seven to Congress
by the end of this fiscal year.
To meet the President's initiative to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog, we must continue to focus our
resources on caring for existing areas of the national park
system. Thus, we have concerns about funding requirements for a
new park unit that could be required if the study recommends
designation while the Department is trying to eliminate the
deferred maintenance backlog. As such, the Department will
identify in each study all acquisition, one-time, and
operational costs of the proposed site. At this time, those
costs are unknown.
H.R. 3815 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
carry out a study on the suitability and feasibility of
designating the William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home
located in Hope, Arkansas, as a National Historic Site.
Hope, Arkansas, is the location of the boyhood home of the
42nd President. It is located between Dallas and Memphis. This
southern community is part of the Texarkana greater
metropolitan area. Built in 1917, the house in Hope where
President Clinton spent his first 4 years with his maternal
grandparents is now owned by the Clinton Birthplace Foundation.
This is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization and was established
to help preserve the site, and has a witness represented here
today.
In 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105-391, the National
Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which requires
congressional authorization of areas to be studied for
potential new units of the national park system. The law also
designates the criteria to be followed by the National Park
Service in determining whether to recommend an area as a unit
of the national park system. Thus, this study will determine
whether it conforms to the criteria of Public Law 105-391.
With respect to historic sites, the studies not only look
at whether the event or person associated with the site was
historically significant, they look at the integrity of the
buildings and other factors, such as whether there are other
sites that might more appropriately tell the story associated
with a particular site.
The national park system consists of many previous
residences of former Presidents. However, there are also many
residences of former Presidents that are not part of the
system. A study would look at whether the Federal Government is
the most appropriate entity to manage the site and would help
identify other protection and preservation methods available.
When sites are managed by other entities, such as State
governments or private foundations, the National Park Service
may assist these entities in achieving the common goal of
protecting and interpreting these places for all Americans.
Conducting a study allows Congress to be certain it is
protecting an area that meets the criteria to be designated a
unit of the national park system, and the National Park Service
is the best agency to manage the site.
A study would also enable the National Park Service and
Congress to identify the costs in acquiring, restoring and
operating a potential site. Such a review is important if we
are to gain control over the deferred maintenance backlog and
eliminate it within 5 years, as the President's initiative
seeks to do.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Statement of P. Daniel Smith, Special Assistant to the Director,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R.
3815, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study of the suitability and feasibility of establishing a Presidential
National Historic Site, in Hope, Arkansas, and for other purposes.
The Department supports H.R. 3815, with a technical amendment noted
at the end of this testimony. However, the Department did not request
additional funding for this study in Fiscal Year 2003. We believe that
any funding requested should be directed towards completing previously
authorized studies. Presently, there are 37 studies pending, of which
we hope to transmit at least 7 to Congress by the end of 2002. To meet
the President's Initiative to eliminate the deferred maintenance
backlog, we must continue to focus our resources on caring for existing
areas in the National Park System. Thus, we have concerns about new
funding requirements for a new park unit that could be required if the
study recommends designation while the Department is trying to
eliminate the deferred maintenance backlog. As such, the Department
will identify in each study all acquisition, one-time, and operational
costs of the proposed site. At this time, these costs are unknown.
H.R. 3815 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry
out a study on the suitability and feasibility of designating the
William Jefferson Clinton birthplace home located in Hope, Arkansas, as
a national historic site. Hope, Arkansas, is the location of the
boyhood home of William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd President of the
United States. Located between Dallas and Memphis, this southern
community is part of the Texarkana greater metropolitan area. Built in
1917, the house in Hope, where President Clinton spent his first four
years with his maternal grandparents, is now owned by the Clinton
Birthplace Foundation. This non-profit 501(c)(3) organization was
established to help preserve this presidential site.
In 1998, Congress passed Public Law 105-391, the National Parks
Omnibus Management Act of 1998, which requires congressional
authorization of areas to be studied for potential new units of the
National Park System. The law also designates the criteria to be
followed by the National Park Service in determining whether to
recommend an area as a unit of the National Park System. This study
will determine whether it conforms to the criteria of Public Law 105-
391.
With respect to historic sites, the studies do not only look at
whether the event or person associated with the site was historically
significant. They look at the integrity of the buildings, and other
factors, such as whether there are other sites that might more
appropriately tell the story associated with a particular site.
The National Park System consists of many previous residences of
former presidents. However, there are also many residences of former
presidents that are not part of the system. A study would look at
whether the Federal Government is the most appropriate entity to manage
the site and would help identify other protection and preservation
methods available. When sites are managed by other entities, such as
state governments or private foundations, the National Park Service may
assist these entities in achieving the common goal of protecting and
interpreting these important places for all Americans. Conducting a
study allows Congress to be certain it is protecting an area that meets
the criteria to be designated a unit of the National Park System and
that the National Park Service is the best agency to manage the site.
A study also would enable the National Park Service and Congress to
identify the costs in acquiring, restoring, and operating a potential
site. Such a review is important if we are to gain control of the
deferred maintenance backlog and eliminate it within five years, as the
President's Initiative seeks to do.
We recommend a technical amendment to include a missing word. On
page 2, line 15, insert ``the'' after ``to''.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Finfer, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF LARRY FINFER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
COMMUNICATIONS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Mr. Finfer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 4141, the Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area Protection and Enhancement Act of
2002. The Department generally supports the land tenure
adjustments outlined in the bill, but believes several issues
need to be addressed before it is advanced by the Committee.
Red Rock Canyon is among the most spectacular areas managed
by BLM and now attracts over 1 million visitors annually. Red
Rock also enjoys considerable support in the Las Vegas
community, and the management of the NCA is vastly enhanced by
the Friends of Red Rock and other partners.
H.R. 4141 proposes to legislate a land exchange between the
BLM and the Hughes Corporation, as well as to transfer other
public lands to Clark County for a park. The lands proposed to
be transferred to the BLM from Hughes border the eastern edge
of the NCA and total about 1,068 acres, seven parcels. The BLM
strongly supports the acquisition of these parcels and believes
they will enhance the NCA. Their addition will improve boundary
management and enable better protection of the rock art
cultural resources in the NCA.
The public lands identified for transfer by exchange to
Hughes total about 1,001 acres and were identified as suitable
for disposal under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act. We understand these lands would be used to expand a
master-planned housing community.
At this time we do not have appraisals for the lands
proposed for exchange in order to determine if they are, in
fact, of approximate equal value. It is our understanding that
Hughes has contracted with a private appraiser and expects to
deliver estimates to BLM soon. Should these parcels not be of
equal value, we would like the opportunity to modify the
acreage of the lands involved in the exchange before the bill
moves to markup.
Further, the lands in question may be encumbered by rights-
of-ways and mining claims. We believe these uses, as well as
concerns such as the responsibility for hazardous materials,
need to be addressed in the bill.
The bill would also require the BLM to transfer about 1,344
acres of other public lands to Clark County at no cost for
purposes of a park. These lands are adjacent to and
intermingled with the lands to be transferred to the Hughes
Corporation. While we do not oppose the transfer of these lands
to the county, we believe they should be transferred at fair
market value or, alternatively, under a Recreation and Public
Purposes Act lease.
In addition, our concerns about impacts on previously
authorized uses in the Hughes transfer also apply to this one.
In summary, we expect the benefits of the transfer of lands
outlined in H.R. 4141 to be positive. However, we believe a
number of unresolved issues need to be reconciled so we can
support final passage of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am pleased to
respond to any questions that you may have.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much Mr. Finfer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Finfer follows:]
Statement of Larry Finfer, Assistant Director for Communications,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding H.R. 4141, the
Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Protection and Enhancement
Act of 2002. The Department generally supports the land tenure
adjustments outlined in the legislation, but believes several issues
need to be addressed before the bill is advanced by the Committee.
H.R. 4141 provides for the exchange of certain lands managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to the west of Las Vegas for certain
other lands owned by the Hughes Corporation which border the Red Rock
Canyon National Conservation Area (NCA), also west of Las Vegas. The
bill would also transfer additional lands from the BLM to Clark County,
Nevada for a county park at no cost.
Background
The Red Rock Canyon NCA was established in November of 1990 under
Public Law 101-621. Its boundaries have been expanded by ensuing Acts
of Congress in 1994 and again in 1998, so that today the NCA covers
approximately 196,000 acres and receives over 1.2 million visitors a
year. Its close proximity to a major urban center makes Red Rock Canyon
NCA both a draw for the local population, and also a popular attraction
for many of Las Vegas's visitors.
The NCA's attraction is a result of a collision 65 million years
ago by two of Earth's crustal plates. The force of that collision
thrust gray limestone up and over younger red sandstone. The result
today has a dramatic visual impact. We are not the first to be drawn to
the spectacular mountains, cliffs, and outcroppings; evidence of
prehistoric native peoples in the NCA date back at least five thousand
years. Rock art, ceramics, and roasting pits bear evidence to their
presence here. The springs that still dot the area undoubtedly brought
these people and perhaps the beauty of the area encouraged them to
stay.
The NCA boasts a 13-mile scenic drive, a visitor center with guided
walks and extensive interpretive materials. Visitors enjoy rock
climbing, hiking, birding, jeep tours, and horseback riding. In
partnership with the BLM, the Friends of the Red Rock, the Red Rock
Canyon Interpretive Association and others, helps to serve many
visitors needs and provides over 40,000 of volunteer hours annually to
the NCA. In addition, commercial outfitters fill an important role in
introducing visitors to many of the NCA's treasures.
H.R. 4141
H.R. 4141 proposes to legislate both a land exchange between the
BLM and the Hughes Corporation as well as transfer additional public
lands to Clark County for a park. The lands proposed to be transferred
to the BLM from the Hughes Corporation border the eastern edge of the
NCA and total approximately 1,068 acres in seven separate parcels. The
BLM strongly supports the acquisition of these parcels and believes
they will enhance the NCA. The addition of these parcels will improve
boundary management and allow for better protection of rock art within
the NCA.
The legislation is silent on responsibility for any potential
hazardous materials that may preexist on these parcels. We believe that
this should be addressed in the legislation. In addition, a
modification of the boundary of the NCA to include all of these added
lands should be clearly stated in the legislation and established on
the legislative map. We are also concerned about language in section
4(a) of the bill that may imply that the Hughes Corporation does not
own all right, title, and interest to these lands and would like
clarification before we move forward. Finally, the Administration
opposes the language contained in section 6(a) and proposes its
deletion. Section 6(a) of the bill exempts implementation of the
exchange from consideration or action under the National Environmental
Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, or any other law or
Executive Order. The Administration supports authorization of an
exchange through normal public review, including title review, and
disclosure of the fiscal and environmental effects of the exchange to
ensure equal value and full awareness of the consequences of the
exchange.
The public lands identified for transfer by exchange to the Hughes
Corporation, total approximately 1001 acres and were identified for
disposal under the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA),
Public Law 105-263. It is our understanding that these lands would be
used for the expansion of a master-planned housing community. Under
SNPLMA, proceeds from BLM-managed lands which are disposed of are
divided between the State of Nevada general education fund (5%), the
Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%), and a special account in the
Treasury for acquisition of environmentally-sensitive lands in Nevada
and other purposes (85%). Section 4 of SNPLMA mandates that in the case
of a land exchange, the non-Federal party remains liable for the 5% and
10% payments. The legislation is silent on this point, and therefore we
make the assumption that these provisions of SNPLMA would apply to the
Hughes Corporation.
In addition, the public lands identified for disposal are currently
encumbered by rights-of-way for roads, water pipelines, gas pipelines,
and power lines as well as mining claims. We would like to ensure that
these current uses are appropriately addressed by the legislation.
At the present time, we do not have appraisals for the lands
proposed for exchange in order to determine if they are, in fact, of
approximate equal value. It is our understanding that the Hughes
Corporation has contracted with a private appraiser and expects to have
estimates to the BLM in the near future. Should these parcels not be of
equal value we would like the opportunity to modify the acreage of the
lands involved in the exchange before the bill moves to markup.
The bill would also require the BLM to transfer approximately 1,344
acres of additional public lands to Clark County at no cost for
purposes of a park. These lands are adjacent and intermingled with the
lands to be transferred to the Hughes Corporation. While we do not
oppose the transfer of these lands to the county we believe they should
be transferred at fair market value or through a Recreation and Public
Purposes (R&PP) lease. In addition, our concerns about impacts on
preexisting uses in the Hughes transfer would also apply to this
transfer.
Finally, H.R. 4141 references a map. We are in the process of
creating a map which better reflects the specifics of this proposal,
including land status. We would strongly recommend the bill be amended
to reference the BLM map as opposed to one created by a private entity.
Conclusion
The long-term benefits of the transfer of lands outlined in H.R.
4141 will be positive. However, we believe that a number of unresolved
issues need to be reconciled before we could fully support final
passage of this bill.
______
Mr. Gibbons. I would like now to introduce a friend, Mr.
Daniel Van Epp, President of the Howard Hughes Corporation.
Welcome, Mr. Van Epp. We have known each other for many
years, and we have worked on this project for many years. And
it is a pleasure to have you here, as is your son, Nate, who is
back there making sure that you testify correctly. We want to
welcome you. As we know, this is your cameo appearance before
the U.S. Congress, and it is indeed a pleasure to have you.
The lights in front of you are simply a stop-and-go sign.
That red light, 5 minutes; yellow, sum it up; and the green--
the red light is to stop, yellow is to sum it up, and green is
to talk as much as you want.
With that, Mr. Van Epp, if I could get it straight, you are
welcome and the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL VAN EPP, PRESIDENT, HOWARD HUGHES
CORPORATION, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
Mr. Van Epp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here to testify to you today.
We appreciate the work of your office and staff in crafting
and introducing this bill to the House of Representatives, a
bill that would enhance the Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area and preserve significant viewsheds in the
western Las Vegas Valley.
It would also set aside more than 1,200 acres of ridge line
for use by Clark County as a passive park. And it would raise
the level of protection for an additional 232 acres of BLM land
surrounding a flood control basin adjacent to the conservation
area, thus guaranteeing its permanent preservation.
For these reasons and many more, this bill is supported by
the entire Nevada congressional delegation, as you have just
heard, also by the BLM, local governments of southern Nevada,
conservation groups and other interested parties.
Our company is developing the master-planned community of
Summerlin on land acquired by Howard Hughes nearly a half
century ago. Summerlin is America's most successful master-
planned community, and when completed, it will be home to
160,000 Nevadans.
Our company was acquired in 1996 by The Rouse Company,
recognized today as one of America's most successful real
estate investment trusts. The Rouse Company developed Columbia,
Maryland, one of the first major master-planned communities in
America. Other major successful projects include downtown
revitalization, such as Harbor Place in Baltimore and Faneuil
Hall in Boston.
Joining me today is the Vice Chairman of The Rouse Company,
Douglas McGregor.
Summerlin covers more than 22,000 acres and stretches along
the western rim of the Las Vegas Valley, bordering public
lands, including the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area.
Mr. Van Epp. A principal reason passage of this bill is so
important is that the boundary of the Federal land to our west
is based on section lines and so it does not conform to the
well-defined foot of the mountains. Thus it is that the very
toes or shoulders of some of those mountains are clipped by the
current property lines. A clear border is created where the
mountain slopes meet the alluvial plain, forming a natural and
desirable boundary between Summerlin and the conservation area.
The bases of those mountains that currently lie within
Summerlin make up the bulk of the offered lands of this
exchange proposal.
Logic would dictate that if most of the mountain is under
the protection of a conservation area, perhaps the entire
mountain should be also included, and that is precisely what
this legislation addresses. Our company takes great pride in
the quality of Summerlin and guides its development with a
strong environmental stewardship. At Summerlin's inception,
approximately 5,000 acres of pristine land was transferred to
the BLM through an exchange, creating what is today the gateway
and buffer zone for the astonishingly beautiful Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area.
There are many other examples of our environmental
leadership, including the use of water-saving landscapes,
preservation of arroyos to maintain natural terrain while
providing recreational opportunities, and design criteria that
require the use of color palettes indigenous to the desert,
thereby reducing impact on the viewshed. Most visitors to Las
Vegas are well acquainted with the manmade grandeur of the
Strip, but 15 miles to the west, our efforts in the creation of
Summerlin are precisely the opposite, to preserve the natural
beauty and harmony of the desert by responsible development.
While it is generally acknowledged that custom home lots
perched on mountain slopes provide extraordinary high value
view lots, the impact of such development on viewsheds is an
issue. This bill refers to an exchange of lands of equal value.
That value is being determined by an appraisal conducted by a
BLM-approved professional using all applicable Federal
standards and, as mentioned earlier, is due to be complete in
the very near future.
The process of gathering input on this bill has been open
and inclusive, and we have initiated dozens of meetings with
environmental leaders, government agencies and community
organizations. The result is widespread support from members of
the local Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy and numerous
leaders of environmental and conservation groups in southern
Nevada. We believe this bill is a prime example of constructive
legislation. It engenders public consensus and accomplishes
multiple goals. It expands the national conservation area. It
protects and preserves the viewshed for the entire Las Vegas
valley. It improves access to the conservation area, and it
creates a park for Clark County residents.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for
your consideration and leadership.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Van Epp follows:]
Statement of Daniel Van Epp, President, The Howard Hughes Corporation
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this
important Subcommittee in support of H.R. 4141, the Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area Protection and Enhancement Act of 2002.
We appreciate the efforts and expertise of Congressman James
Gibbons and his staff in introducing H.R. 4141 to the House of
Representatives. The Congressman's leadership has resulted in a well-
crafted bill, beneficial to the residents of Clark County, and
supported by the entire Nevada congressional delegation, Nevada local
governments, conservation groups and other interested parties.
This bill will enhance the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area, and preserve significant viewsheds in the western Las Vegas
Valley. H.R. 4141 will also set aside approximately 1223 acres of high-
terrain Federal land along a prominent ridgeline for use by Clark
County as a passive park and component of a growing regional trail
system. Finally, the bill would incorporate 232 acres of BLM land
surrounding a flood control basin into the adjacent Red Rock Canyon
National Conservation Area, thus guaranteeing its permanent protection.
INTRODUCTION
The Howard Hughes Corporation, an affiliate of The Rouse Company,
is developing the Summerlin master-planned community in Clark County.
Summerlin borders BLM- managed public lands on the western side of the
Las Vegas Valley, including the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation
Area. Howard Hughes takes great pride in the quality of the Summerlin
community and its contribution to the quality of life in Las Vegas.
Similarly, we are committed to sensitive development that protects and
enhances the priceless public resources of Southern Nevada, especially
the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. That is why this land
exchange makes such good sense from every perspective.
THE EXCHANGE
Under the proposed legislation sponsored by Congressman Gibbons,
The Howard Hughes Corporation would transfer to the BLM 1,071 acres of
privately-held high-ground acreage (lands offered) in the northwestern
region of Summerlin in exchange for Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
acreage of equal value. These ``lands selected'' are inside the
Southern Nevada Land Disposal Boundary, and are contiguous with the
southern region of Summerlin. The exact amount of land our company will
acquire is dependent on the results of an appraisal in progress.
Most of the lands offered comprise the lower slopes of mountains
which are located primarily inside the Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area. Exchanging them to the Federal Government guarantees
that they will be protected from private development that could
negatively impact the approach to Red Rock and mar the spectacular
viewshed of this area looking west from Las Vegas.
In return, The Howard Hughes Corporation will acquire lands of
equal value (determined through appraisal) that lie west and south of
its current Summerlin holdings. Through the Southern Nevada Public
Lands Management Act, this property is already slated for future
disposal and development, either by auction or exchange to private
parties or for public purposes.
BENEFITS
1. LRed Rock Canyon National Conservation Area is enhanced and
expanded by the addition of approximately 1,071 acres of adjacent
private high-terrain land.
2. LClark County will acquire approximately 1,223 acres of high
ridgeline property inside the Southern Nevada Disposal Boundary for use
as a passive county park. This will allow the county to develop trail
systems with management plans, providing residents with a spectacular
and accessible recreational opportunity.
3. LThe Howard Hughes Corporation can continue environmentally
sound development of our land, while preserving significant viewsheds
and improving access to conservation areas.
4. LA portion of BLM land was originally excluded from Red Rock
because of the need for a regional flood control structure. The
structure is now built and 232 acres of the 'carve-out' that were not
used remain outside the Conservation Area. We propose amending the
current bill to insert these lands into the Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area, which would grow by an additional 232 acres. This
amendment would enhance viewshed protection and provide protected trail
access routes into the National Conservation Area.
HUGHES HISTORY
When Howard Hughes died in 1976, his estate included 49,000 acres
of real estate. After the disposition of all but the most valuable
properties, Summa Corporation, now known as The Howard Hughes
Corporation, retained the land in Southern Nevada that is currently
under development as Summerlin. In 1996 the corporation merged with The
Rouse Company of Columbia, Maryland, one of the largest publicly held
real estate development and management companies in the United States.
The Rouse Company is one of the nation's foremost real estate
investment trusts.
SUMMERLIN
Today Summerlin is ranked as America's most successful master-
planned community and is home to more than 60,000 residents. Upon
build-out in 2015, more than 160,000 Nevada residents will call
Summerlin home. The community spans the Las Vegas Valley's western rim,
much of it bordering the mountains of Red Rock Canyon National
Conservation Area.
The boundaries that demarcate the Federal land to our west are
based on section lines or fractions thereof. Thus it is that the very
'toes' or 'shoulders' of some bordering mountains are 'clipped' by the
current property lines. Those lower mountain lands make up the bulk of
the offered lands of this exchange proposal. Logic would dictate that
all of a given mountain in a conservation area should be included, and
that is precisely what this legislation addresses.
ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY
The Howard Hughes Corporation enjoys and values a strong working
relationship with the environmental community of Southern Nevada. This
partnership dates back to an exchange facilitated by The Nature
Conservancy in 1987, long before the first homes were built in
Summerlin. Through this exchange, The Howard Hughes Corporation and the
Bureau of Land Management assured the preservation of a significant
part of Red Rock Canyon. The exchange transferred a 5,000-acre parcel
of land owned by Hughes, which provided an important buffer zone and
gateway into one of Southern Nevada's most precious environmental
treasures. This parcel was considered a critical element in what
eventually became the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
Environmental stewardship has been an integral part of the entire
planning process of our master-planned community. Summerlin is the
first major scale master-planned community in Nevada to use award
winning drought-tolerant (low-water-use) plantings in common areas,
saving precious water resources. Strict design criteria are imposed to
reduce viewshed impacts throughout the community. Natural drainage
features such as arroyos are often preserved to maintain natural
terrain, while at the same time providing recreational opportunities.
Light pollution is addressed through the use of limited-spread street
lighting.
These are just a few of the many ways in which our company has
addressed and maintained a dedication to environmentally sound
development. We are proud of the numerous awards and considerable
recognition this planning has garnered.
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
There has been a fair amount of media attention focused on hillside
development recently in Southern Nevada (see attached article). While
it is generally acknowledged that custom home lots cut from hillsides
provide extraordinary high-value view lots, the impact of such
development on viewsheds is an issue. As profiled in attached media
reports, Hughes is dedicated to reducing that impact in our northwest
holdings through this exchange. Likewise, the county acquisition of the
high ground ridgeline to the south also enhances such preservation
efforts.
APPRAISAL
The language in this bill refers to an exchange of lands ``of equal
value.'' That value is being determined by appraisal. The appraisal
will comply with all applicable Federal standards and is supported by
both an extensive engineering study, as well as an extensive marketing
study. The appraisal nearly complete and will be turned over to the Las
Vegas District BLM office for review.
CREATING A NEW PARK
An important element of this legislation will create a major
recreational opportunity for the Las Vegas Valley. Clark County will
receive approximately 1223 acres of ridgeline for use as a passive
park. The county identified the recreational and planning advantages of
acquiring this ridge years ago. Aside from the potential for trail
systems, the acquisition will also address an important viewshed issue.
Commercial or residential development of this ridgeline would impact
the viewshed for the southwest quadrant of the Las Vegas Valley, if not
the valley-at-large. Any associated increase in the value of lands
surrounding this potential park has been factored into the appraisal
process.
SUPPORT
The process of gathering input has been open and inclusive, and has
involved dozens of meetings with interested parties, government
agencies (both local and Federal), community organizations and
concerned residents.
Our corporation has initiated such meetings to discuss the
potential exchange with environmental leaders in Nevada, working toward
a bill that will benefit all residents of Clark County. This bill has
received widespread support from the environmental community, including
words of praise from the local Nevada chapter of the Sierra Club,
leaders of which (including Jane Feldman) were featured in newspaper
stories as well as on television news reports. The Sierra Club also
wrote a letter of ``non-opposition'' to this exchange (see attached).
Other environmental supporters of the bill include The Nature
Conservancy (see attached letter), and Alan O'Neill, executive director
of the Outside Las Vegas Foundation (see attached letter).
The exchange is likewise supported by both the City of Las Vegas
(see attached resolution) and Clark County (resolution to be introduced
by Clark County).
SUMMARY
This legislation will impart significant benefits to all Southern
Nevadans, including conservation of sensitive lands and the
establishment of considerable recreational opportunities, while still
providing economic opportunity for The Howard Hughes Corporation.
Supported by the environmental community, local government and the
Bureau of Land Management, this bill is a prime example of constructive
legislation that engenders public consensus.
We are deeply appreciative of the opportunity to provide details
and to testify in person on this proposed legislation. The elected
leaders and staff who conduct the legislative process of the House of
Representatives are to be commended for their service to country and
constituents. It is an honor to be invited to contribute to such a
process. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we thank you all
for your kind consideration, especially Congressman James Gibbons,
whose leadership and initiative made it possible.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Van Epp's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.024
Mr. Gibbons. [Presiding] Mr. Van Epp, I wish everyone could
follow you. That was, to the second, 5 minutes. Obviously you
practiced that speech. As everyone heard, we have a vote
underway. We have a little less than 10 minutes, probably
between 5 and 10 minutes left.
Turn now to Crystal Altenbaumer. Welcome. The floor is
yours. We look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CRYSTAL ALTENBAUMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WILLIAM
J. CLINTON BIRTHPLACE HOME, HOPE, ARKANSAS
Ms. Altenbaumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am going to make mine quick because I am
freezing. So if my teeth start chattering, you will understand.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
3815, the Presidential Historic Site and Study Act. This
legislation would authorize the Department of Interior to study
the feasibility of designating the birthplace home of President
William Jefferson Clinton in Hope, Arkansas as a national
historic site. The house at 117 South Hervey Street in Hope,
Arkansas is known as the Bill Clinton birthplace or the first
home of the 42nd President of the United States. The Clinton
Birthplace Foundation was established in 1993 as a nonprofit
corporation to serve the historic preservation opportunities in
President Clinton's home State. Currently the foundation is not
affiliated with, sponsored by, or otherwise supported by the
President of the United States or any official agency of the
Federal Government.
One of the foundation's primary goals is to restore and
preserve President Clinton's first home. President Clinton's
grandparents, Edith and Eldridge Cassidy, purchased the home in
1938, and at that time the President's mother, Virginia, was in
high school. During the next few years she met and married
William Blythe. Virginia Cassidy Blythe was 3 months pregnant
with her first child when her husband was killed in a car wreck
during a business trip. Virginia lived in the house with her
parents during the remainder of her pregnancy, giving birth to
William Jefferson Blythe on August 19, 1946.
Virginia raised Billy in Hope with the help of her parents
for the first 2 years of his life. After his second birthday,
she left him in her parents' care to attend nursing school in
order to be able to support herself and young son. Then in 1950
Virginia married Roger Clinton.
The home on 117 South Hervey Street is the property most
directly associated with the teachings, values and benefits
that have served President Clinton throughout his life and
career. The Cassidys taught their young grandson by placing
flash cards on the curtains and they would drill him over and
over until he knew his numbers. They also taught him how to
read newspapers by the time he was 4 years old. It was in this
house that Bill Clinton spent his formative years learning to
talk, walk, laugh, play, read, and pray. President Clinton has
said he has great memories of living with his wonderful
grandparents. President Clinton's grandfather owned a small
grocery store in Hope, and despite the segregation laws at the
time allowed people of all races to make purchases on credit.
The Cassidys taught their grandson that everyone should be
treated equally. Clinton's statement ``I still believe in a
place called Hope'' has given people of every race the
inspiration to strive forward while paying tribute to the place
where he learned life's lessons.
Through interpretive programs the Clinton birthplace and
visitor center will seek to stimulate an interest in history
and engender an understanding of what the past means to the
present and the future. It has promoted the value of education
and shows what education has done for President Clinton, making
it an excellent field trip experience for school. It is seen as
a strong historical and educational project that will attract a
large number of public school children throughout the country.
Besides chronicling the life and times of Bill Clinton, the
Clinton birthplace and visitor center recognizes and promotes
the rich history, achievements and legacy of the region and
State to show the impact of this environment on the young Bill
Clinton. It serves as a tourist attraction promoting economic
development throughout Hope, Hempstead County and southwest
Arkansas.
The financial structure for this historic treasure has come
from extensive fund-raising efforts, small grants and some
funding from the Arkansas government. Citizens from throughout
the Nation have supported the restoration program and have
helped sustain the foundation and the birthplace home, many of
them coming with multiyear pledges. Today the Clinton
Birthplace Foundation operates on money raised from admissions,
sales from gift shop and contributions from visitors and other
interested parties. While the foundation is presently
financially sound, cutbacks have been made where necessary to
maintain operations while awaiting national park status. Other
fund-raising efforts will be ongoing to establish the
educational facilities at the center so the foundation can hand
over to National Park Service a site already established as an
educational, historic and tourist family attraction.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering any questions the
Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Altenbaumer follows:]
Statement of Crystal Altenbaumer, Executive Director, William J.
Clinton Birthplace Home, Hope, Arkansas, on H.R. 3815
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 3815, the Presidential
Historic Site Study Act. This legislation would authorize the
department of the Interior to study the feasibility of designating the
birthplace home of President William Jefferson Clinton in Hope, AR as a
national historic site. The house at 117 S. Hervey Street in Hope, AR
is known as the Bill Clinton birthplace or the first home of the 42nd
President of the United States.
Birthplace Foundation
The Clinton Birthplace Foundation was established in 1993 as a non-
profit corporation to serve the historic preservation opportunities in
President Clinton's home state. Currently, the Foundation is not
affiliated with, sponsored by or otherwise supported by the President
of the United States or any official agency of the Federal Government.
One of the Foundation's primary goals is to restore and preserve
President Clinton's first home.
History
In 1917, Dr. H.J.S. Garrett, who settled in Hope after living in
France, built the structure located at 117 South Hervey Street in Hope,
AR. Structurally, it is known as the American foursquare, a 2-+-story
2,100 square ft. building.
Virginia Cassidy's parents, Edith & Eldridge Cassidy, purchased the
home in 1938, while Virginia was in high school. During the next few
years she met & married William Blythe, a traveling salesman. Virginia
Cassidy Blythe was three months pregnant with their first child when
her husband was killed in a car wreck during a business trip. Virginia
lived in the house with her parents during the remainder of her
pregnancy, giving birth to William Jefferson Blythe on August 19, 1946.
Virginia raised Billy in Hope, with the help of her parents for the
first two years of his life. After his second birthday she left him in
her parents care to attend nursing school in New Orleans, LA, learning
the trade of nurse anesthetist to support herself and young son. In
1950, Virginia married Roger Clinton.
The home on 117 S. Hervey Street is the property most directly
associated with the teachings, values, and benefits that have served
President Clinton throughout his life and career. The Cassidy's taught
their young grandson to count by placing flash cards on the kitchen
curtains and drilling him over and over the numbers while he was fed.
They taught him how to read newspapers by the age of 4. It was in this
house that Bill Clinton spent his formative years, learning to walk,
talk, laugh, play, read & pray. President Clinton has said ``he has
great memories of living with his wonderful grandparents.''
President Clinton's grandfather owned a small grocery store in Hope
and despite the segregation laws of the time, allowed people of all
races to make purchases on credit. The Cassidy's taught their grandson
that everyone should be treated equally. Clinton's statement, ``I still
believe in a place called Hope,'' has given people of every race the
inspiration to strive forward, while paying tribute to the place where
he learned life lessons.
Foundation Mission and Purpose
Since Bill Clinton is the first President of the United States to
be born after World War II, it is only fitting that plans for this
birthplace museum are different from those honoring other Presidents.
While many of these homes keep visitors in hallways behind ropes, the
Clinton home features interactive exhibits.
The Foundation Board of Directors completed an in-depth development
feasibility study in February 1995 for a proposed $1.5 million capital
development program to restore the home. Interviews were conducted with
individuals, businesses and foundations throughout Arkansas and the
United States. The study indicated that the restoration program is
viewed as a ``win-win'' situation for Hope and Arkansas with the
benefits of increased tourism, positive public image, and historical
preservation.
Through interpretive programs, the Clinton birthplace and visitors
center will seek to stimulate an interest in history and engender an
understanding of what the past means to the present and the future. It
has promoted the value of education and shows what education has done
for President Clinton, making it an excellent field-trip experience for
schools. It is seen as a strong historical and educational project that
will attract a large number of public school children throughout
Arkansas, North Texas, Louisiana, and Southeast Oklahoma.
Besides chronicling the life and times of Bill Clinton, the Clinton
birthplace and visitors center recognizes and promotes the rich
history, achievements and legacy of the region and state to show the
impact of this environment on the young Bill Clinton. It serves as a
tourist attraction promoting economic development throughout Hope,
Hempstead County, and Southwest Arkansas.
Restoration
Restoration of the birthplace home began in 1995, and was opened
for visitation on June 1, 1997. Under the professional direction of
Cromwell-Truemper-Levy-Thompson-Woodsmall, the foundation restored the
home into a hands-on museum and has constructed a visitor's center.
Visitors have relative open access to all parts of the home. In
addition to the home serving as an interactive museum, the visitor's
center features an exhibit area and educational facility. The entire
complex is located on a half city block.
Funding
The financial structure for this historic treasure has come from
extensive fund-raising efforts, small grants and some funding from the
Arkansas government. Citizens from throughout the nation have supported
the restoration program. Personal and corporate contributions of
varying amounts, all of them tax-deductible, have helped sustain the
foundation and the birthplace home, many of them coming with multi-year
pledges.
Today, the Clinton Birthplace Foundation operates on money raised
from admissions, sales from the gift shop and contributions from
visitors and other interested parties. While the foundation is
presently financially sound, cutbacks have been made where necessary to
maintain operations while awaiting national park status. Fund-raisers
are being planned to further develop the site and maintain the
structure and facilities available now.
For example, the foundation is selling personalized bricks that
will be placed adjacent to the Virginia Clinton Kelley Memorial Rose
Garden, which will both help maintain the grounds while allowing
citizens to have their names associated with the historic the site.
Other fund-raising efforts will go to establish the educational
facilities at the center so that the foundation can hand over to the
National Parks Service a site already established as an educational,
historic and tourist-friendly attraction. The foundation also has
assuring that visitors will get the information about the home and
family from residents of the area where the president spent his
formative years.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to answering any questions the
Committee might have.
______
[Attachments to Ms. Altenbaumer's statement follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.010
Mr. Gibbons. Absolutely perfect. Folks, I am going to have
to leave to go do the vote process, the process to which I was
elected to this office. It is going to preclude me from asking
questions. I would like to submit written questions to the
witnesses from the Committee to be answered and submitted back
to the Committee for our benefit. I am sure all of you will
agree that should we submit questions to you that you would be
willing to supply answers to them for the record on the
Committee.
Mr. Gibbons. Also for Committee purposes, I would like to
submit for the record a boundary modifications map dated May
24, 2002 for H.R. 4141 and the Red Rock Enhancement Act map
dated March 15, 2002 for the record.
Mr. Gibbons. With that, I want to thank you. I know that
there were expectations of answering and two-way dialog here,
but unfortunately I do not control the floor schedule and the
vote has taken precedent. And I would like to thank you, excuse
the witnesses, and bring this hearing to a close.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The maps submitted for the record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0063.028