[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION ACT
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT 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 8, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-124
__________
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-117 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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 8, 2002..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, Prepared statement of..................... 6
Simpson, Hon. Michael K., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Idaho......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., a United States Senator from the State
of Oregon, Prepared statement of........................... 5
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Davies, Stacy L., Manager, Roaring Springs Ranch, Grazing
Permit Holder, Steens Mountain Advisory Council,
Frenchglen, Oregon......................................... 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Marlett, Bill, Executive Director, Oregon Natural Desert
Association, Bend, Oregon.................................. 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Otley, Fred I., Vice-President and Resource Manager, Otley
Brothers Inc., Grazing Permittee, Diamond, Oregon.......... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Sutherland, Jerry J., Oregon Chapter, Sierra Club, Portland,
Oregon..................................................... 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Wassinger, Chuck, Oregon Associate State Director, Bureau of
Land Management, Portland, Oregon.......................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Witzel, Cynthia K., Co-Owner, Steens Mountain Packers, and
Special Recreation Permit Holder Representative, Steens
Mountain Advisory Council, Frenchglen, Oregon.............. 42
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Yriarte, Harland, Director, Steens Mountain Running Camp,
Eugene, Oregon............................................. 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Additional materials supplied:
Burns Paiute Tribe, Burns, Oregon, Statement submitted for
the record................................................. 81
Ekker, TinaMarie, Policy Director, Wilderness Watch,
Missoula, Montana, Statement submitted for the record...... 87
Finlayson, Stephen and Stephanie, Burns, Oregon, Letter
submitted for the record................................... 90
Newspaper article ``Running school unlikely to present any
danger to Steens environment'' submitted for the record.... 91
Runnels, Pete, Burns, Oregon, Letter submitted for the record 92
Workman, Jill M., Chair, Steens-Alvord Coalition, Statement
submitted for the record by The Honorable Greg Walden...... 93
OVERSIGHT FIELD HEARING ON THE STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT
AND PROTECTION ACT
----------
Saturday, June 8, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands
Committee on Resources
Frenchglen, Oregon
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:40 p.m., at
Frenchglen School, Highway 205, Frenchglen, Oregon 97336, Hon.
Michael K. Simpson presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mr. Simpson. Good afternoon. Subcommittee on National
Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, will come to order.
I appreciate being invited back to this beautiful country,
in this area with the Steens Mountain and all that's gone on
here. And I have spent 3 days here, last summer, with Fred
Otley and Stacy Davies--even met with Bill Marlett--to discuss
what you did here. And I was very impressed. It was my first
trip here, and it is beautiful country.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight
hearing on: (1) the ongoing implementation of the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act, and any
problems the Bureau of Land Management has been having in
executing some of the more unique features of this Act; (2) any
concerns regarding the traditional access to the private
inholdings within the Steens Mountain Management Area; and, (3)
the process for issuing special-use permits for historical
recreational uses within the special area.
At this point, I would like to add that this is not about
additional legislation, which may be introduced or being talked
about. This is about the implementation of the legislation that
is currently on the books, relative to the Steens Mountain--
Steens Mountain Cooperative Management Protection Act.
As many of you know, Congressman Walden led the Oregon
Delegation's efforts, with Governor Kitzhaber, the Department
of the Interior, and various user groups, to establish this
multifaceted Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act. For those of you that are members of the Steens
Mountain's Advisory Committee, you know, firsthand, just how
truly unique and complicated the management of the special area
is, and how unprecedented the concept was, when it was being
developed back in 1999 and 2000. When you are faced with
managing an area that includes Federal, state, and private
lands, as well as a wilderness area, a no-grazing area, and a
cooperative management area, it takes time to make things work
out.
This hearing is of interest to me personally, as I'm
currently working on resolving conflicts in the Boulder-White
Clouds region of South Central Idaho. What I learn today will
have a bearing on how I proceed in trying to work through
issues that are very similar to the ones that you were facing
when this legislation was developed. I believe that people are
watching what is going on here, and that the future of
wilderness legislation is going to depend a great deal on how
the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area and Cooperative Management
Plan is implemented. I have not seen a more collaborative piece
of legislation than the Steens, and if it doesn't work here,
it's hard to imagine one that will work.
If the intent of this legislation is not carried out, or is
co-opted by rulemaking or by agencies or individuals or
lawsuits, it's going to be difficult to get people to the table
in other states. In sum, promises made to those who work on
cooperative agreements such as this, must be kept. It they are
not, future wilderness proposals and corporative agreements
will be in jeopardy.
I have just one housekeeping item that I must take care of,
before we have today's witnesses. First, I'd like to say that
this is not a town hall meeting. And, unlike a town hall
meeting, where we just have people come up and testify, the
people who are testifying today have been invited to testify.
This is an official hearing of the Subcommittee. Each of the
witnesses will see a box on the witness table with three lights
on it. Each witness will have 5 minutes for their oral
testimony. Your entire written statement will be placed in the
record. The green light will illuminate when you begin your
testimony. The yellow will illuminate when you have 1 minute
left. And the red light will illuminate when your 5 minutes are
ended. I would also say that we will keep this hearing record
open for 30 days, and that the Subcommittee may be submitting
questions to those who testified, that we would appreciate
responses to.
At today's hearing, we will hear from Chuck Wassinger, the
Oregon Associate State Director for the Bureau of Land
Management, regarding the ongoing decisionmaking process that
the Bureau is utilizing to further implement the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management Plan. In addition, we will hear
from ranchers, some of whom are members of the Steens Mountain
Advisory Commission, and representatives from the recreational
and environmental community. Congressman Walden and I look
forward to the testimony and any ideas that our witnesses may
have on ways to reduce any conflict between managers and users
of the Steens. I now yield my opening statement to my good
friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michael K. Simpson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Good afternoon. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
Public Lands will come to order.
This afternoon, the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight hearing
on: (1) the ongoing implementation of the Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Act and any problems the Bureau of Land
Management has been having in executing some of the more unique
features of the Act; (2) any concerns regarding traditional access to
private inholdings within the Steen Mountain Management Area, and (3)
the process for issuing special use permits for historical recreational
uses within this special area.
As many of you know, Congressman Walden led the Oregon Delegation's
efforts with Governor Kitzhaber, the Department of Interior and various
user groups to establish the multifaceted Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Act. For those of you that are members of the
Steens Mountain Advisory Committee, you know first-hand just how truly
unique and complicated the management of this special area is, and how
unprecedented the concept was when it was being developed back in 1999
and 2000. When you are faced with managing an area that includes
Federal, state and private lands as well as a wilderness area, a no-
grazing area and a cooperative management area, it takes time to make
things work.
This hearing is of interest to me as I am currently working on
resolving conflicts in the Boulder-White Clouds region of South Central
Idaho. What I learn today will have a bearing on how I proceed in
trying to work through issues that are very similar to the ones that
you were facing when this legislation was developed.
I believe that people are watching what is going on here and that
the future of wilderness legislation is going to depend a great deal on
how the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area and Cooperative Management Plan
is implemented. I have not seen a more collaborative piece of
wilderness legislation than the Steens and if it doesn't work, it's
hard to imagine one that will.
If the intent of this legislation is not carried out or is co-opted
by rulemaking, lawsuits or other agencies/individuals or lawsuits, it's
going to be difficult to get people to the table in other states. In
sum, promises made to those who work on a cooperative agreement such as
this, must be kept. If they are not, future wilderness proposals and
cooperative agreements will be in jeopardy.
I have one housecleaning item for today's witnesses. You will see a
box on the witness table with three lights on it. Each witness will
have five minutes for their oral testimony. Your entire written
statement will be placed in the record. The green will illuminate when
you begin your testimony; the yellow will illuminate when you have one
minute left and the red light will illuminate when your five minutes
has ended.
At today's hearing, we will hear from Chuck Wassinger, the Oregon
Associate State Director for the Bureau of Land Management, regarding
the ongoing decision making process that the Bureau is utilizing to
further implement the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management Plan. In
addition, we will hear from ranchers, some of whom are members of the
Steens Mountain Advisory Commission, and representatives from the
recreational and the environmental community. Congressman Walden and I
look forward to the testimony and any ideas that our witnesses may have
on ways to reduce any conflict between managers and users of the
Steens.
I now yield for an opening statement to my good friend from Oregon,
Mr. Walden, for his opening statement.
______
STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you,
Mike, for making the trip out here today. I want to apologize
to the audience, too, for our delay in getting started. The
plane that was sent to get us, from Bend, had a mechanical on
the way to Portland to pick all of us up, and returned to its
original landing strip. I prefer, when planes have mechanicals,
that they have them without us on board, which was the case
today. But it became very difficult to find a replacement
plane, to be able to fly down. Eventually, we were able to
charter one out of Wenatchee, to come and get us. So, my
apologies for the start.
But I want to thank Congressman Simpson, who represents the
Second District of Idaho, and is a member of the Subcommittee,
for chairing this hearing and for attending. I also want to
recognize that we will be inserting, in the record, a statement
from my colleague Congressman DeFazio, as well as a statement
from Senator Smith. Both Senator Smith and Senator Wyden, I
believe, have staff here, in attendance today. And we want to
welcome David Blair. We want to welcome Martin Doern and Rich
Krikiva. I also want to thank the gentlemen seated behind me--
both Paul Griffin, on my staff, and Lindsay Slater, who is
familiar to many of you, who is now Chief of Staff to Mike
Simpson. Lindsay spent the better part of the year as
Legislative Director on my staff, negotiating the Steens
Mountain legislation. That wore him out, and he had to move to
Idaho.
[Laughter.]
It was about 3 years ago, in the front yard of this school,
that we gathered to talk about whether or not we should proceed
with a legislative alternative to a proposal being put forth by
the Clinton Administration--and, specifically, Secretary
Babbitt--to declare the Steens Mountain a national monument.
And I remember, very vividly, a barbecue we had out here, and
had that discussion. And, at that time, made the decision,
together, that we could proceed with legislation and do our
part to try and help craft something that would be better than
a national monument. And I think we succeeded in crafting that
legislation. The real challenge that's ahead of us is to make
sure that what we thought we agreed to, and the intent of that
legislation, gets implemented here on the ground, both by the
Steens Mountain Advisory Committee Council, as well as by the
agencies involved, and that the commitments that were made by
various groups along the way, as that was hammered out, are
followed.
I am troubled, frankly, and concerned by some of the access
issues that are being raised, especially as it relates to
private land holders and the rights of private land holders to
be able to access their property without having to go through
some sort of formal NEPA process and EA process. Certainly,
that was never the thought I had in mind, nor do I think it was
the intent of the legislation.
There are lots of other questions involving the
recreational uses on the mountains. There were just too many
times that we had meetings and discussions where we said, ``The
thrust of this legislation is different than the thrust of
other wilderness legislation.'' Throughout the entire debate on
this bill, we talked about doing it differently here--creating
a cooperative management strategy here, that fully recognized
the historical uses on this mountain. Economic, social,
environmental--all of them. Ranching and recreational. And that
we had an opportunity to write a law that was different than
laws that had been written before. And I'm fully, fully aware
that that was the discussion that we had, and that that was the
intent of the law that we wrote. And so, as we begin to work
through these issues, I want to commend the dedicated members
of the SMAC for tackling a lot of these issues. But it appears
to me that there are some very serious concerns that are out
there about access, and I hope we can get to the bottom of
those today. There are issues about where we may go from here,
in terms of making sure this Act gets implemented with the
intent that those of us who wrote it had.
So, I want to thank our witnesses for making the trip out
to this special part of Oregon, and those of you who are local
here, I appreciate your willingness to join us today. I also
want to thank those individuals who made this hearing a
possibility today. Obviously, the people involved in Frenchglen
School--Thank you for opening the gymnasium to us. Earlyna
Hammond, Rob Howarth, from our Resources Committee. Both the
communities of Diamond and Frenchglen for putting together a
barbecue that will occur afterwards. And I would also like to
thank the various staff members from our delegation that I
already mentioned, who are with us today. I'd also like to
notice Commissioner Dan Nichols, and Judge Steve Grasty, and
Commissioner Jack Drinkwater, and all the elected officials--
state and local--for their efforts in working with the Federal
agencies to ensure that this landmark legislation is enacted as
smoothly as possible. Finally, I'd like to wish Hoyt Wilson a
speedy recovery from his most recent surgery. He was originally
scheduled to testify today, but his shoes will be ably filled
by Fred Otley.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate, again, your
willingness to hold this hearing, and willingness of our
overall Chairman, Congressman Hansen, to allow us to come out
and have an official Resources Committee hearing here. By the
way, I believe we are setting history today, and I think we can
safely say it's the first time the House Resources Committee
has held a hearing in Frenchglen.
So, we're delighted you're with us. We're delighted to be
here. This is where it happens.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Congressman Walden. I am pleased to
be here in Frenchglen. If any of you wonder why I'm smiling
when I say ``Frenchglen,'' it's because we have--Some of the
staff just lost a bet. I kept thinking--My wife's basketball
hero, Larry Bird, is from a place called ``French Lick,
Indiana,'' and I kept saying ``French Lick,'' and they kept
saying, ``No, it's Frenchglen.'' And so, they made a bet
whether I would say ``French Lick'' or ``Frenchglen.'' So, I
got it right, but if I screw up during the hearing, at any
given time, please forgive me now.
[Laughter.]
So, I appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Gordon H. Smith, a United States Senator
from the State of Oregon
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's important field
hearing on the implementation of the Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Act of 2000.
In the 106th Congress, faced with a potential national monument
designation for the Steens Mountain area, you and I worked with our
colleagues in the Oregon delegation and interested stakeholders to
create the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of
2000. Our goal in this process was to ensure historic ranching and
recreational uses of the area continued, even as we enhanced
protections for the unique natural treasure that is Steens Mountain. It
took us over one year to negotiate out the provisions of the bill
between Members of Congress, the Secretary of the Interior, the
Governor of Oregon, the local ranching community, local outfitters, and
environmental organizations.
It was clear at the time that we were trying to establish a new,
innovative approach to cooperative management of the area between the
Federal Government and the local landowners. We believed that
Oregonians, as leaders in environmental stewardship, could craft a new,
locally supported approach that did not attempt to impose on this
management area an existing land management classification. We also
created a Steens Mountain Advisory Council, composed of a diverse group
of stakeholders who are to provide ongoing input concerning the
management of the area to the Bureau of Land Management.
I am concerned, however, about ensuring continued access for
ranchers to grazing allotments and non-federal lands on the mountain,
as well as efforts to disrupt the operations of the Steens Mountain
Running Camp. The running camp is an excellent facility that has
trained thousands of runners and has operated on the mountain for the
past quarter century. It was clearly congressional intent that historic
uses of the mountain be allowed to continue under this Act. In fact,
one of the objectives of the Area, as identified in the statute, is
``to promote grazing, recreation, historic and other uses that are
sustainable.'' In addition, the House report language states that the
Act ``is intended to enhance statutory protections for the area while
maintaining the viability of historic ranching and recreational
operations in the Steens Mountain area.''
I am committed to ensuring that the long-term management plan for
the area fulfills congressional intent, as well as the commitments made
to the residents of Harney County. I want to thank those stakeholders
who are working in good faith to achieve this same result.
Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your steadfast leadership to find a
balanced approach to difficult land management issues. I look forward
to reviewing the testimony from today's field hearing in Frenchglen and
continuing to work with you to find consensus-based solutions to public
lands management issues in the region.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Peter DeFazio, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oregon
I would like thank Congressman Walden for asking for this oversight
hearing, and his continued interest in resolving management issues on
the Steens to ensure the best protection possible for this unique and
majestic ecosystem.
Through a joint effort involving former Secretary of Interior,
Bruce Babbitt, local residents and interest groups, environmentalists,
and Oregon's congressional delegation, we were able to craft unique
legislation that hopefully can be used as a model for managing our
public lands treasures. The final compromise bill was well received. It
was supported by the Clinton Administration, Governor Kitzhaber, and
the entire Oregon congressional delegation. The legislation was
approved by voice vote, without objection, when it came before the full
House of Representatives.
Since the passage of this historic legislation, controversy over
the management plan has developed and continued to fester. As you all
know, the controversy primarily involves issues of access to private
property, and appropriate recreational uses of the wilderness.
Most prominent among these issues is the use of the wilderness by
young athletes attending the Steens Mountain Running Camp. The Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) has done the required Environmental Analysis
(EA) of the ecological impact the camp would have on the wilderness.
The EA concluded that the impact of the camp would be negligible. It's
my opinion that there should be no question as to whether the camp
participants should be allowed to hike and run in the Steens
wilderness. I don't believe the camp's activities violate the spirit or
intent of the wilderness portion of the legislation, or of the 1964
Wilderness Act.
That said, I strongly encourage all parties to come to the table
and work together to develop a reasonable option for the camp in an
effort to avoid divisive legal action. The legislation that created the
Steens wilderness was only possible through cooperation and non-
partisan compromise. It is in this spirit that I hope the camp's
management and environmentalists can come together to resolve their
differences, and find a workable solution that allows the camp to use
the wilderness in a responsible manner.
It's been over a year and a half since the Steens bill was approved
by Congress. Many recreation and access issues remain controversial and
unresolved because the BLM has yet to release a comprehensive
management plan for the area, as required by the Steens legislation. A
BLM management plan would provide the framework to resolve
controversial issues. I am pleased that the scoping process is now
complete, but I encourage the BLM to move forward as quickly as
possible to develop and release a management plan for the Steens.
Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Walden for holding this field hearing,
and commend him for his interest in resolving difficult issues on the
Steens.
______
Mr. Simpson. Our first panel is Mr. Chuck Wassinger, the
Associate State Director for the Bureau of Land Management, for
Portland, Oregon. Chuck, welcome to today's hearing. We look
forward to hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK WASSINGER, ASSOCIATE STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU
OF LAND MANAGEMENT, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Wassinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I get
started, I would like to request that our district manager, Tom
Dyer, and our field manager, Miles Brown, join me at the table,
if possible. They may be able to respond to some of specific
questions.
Mr. Simpson. Certainly, we would like to have those two
join you at the table. And, before you begin your testimony,
I'll ask unanimous consent that Congressman DeFazio and Senator
Smith's statements appear in the opening record. And I am,
also--since this is his district and so forth, I'm going to
turn the Chair of this hearing over to Congressman Walden.
Mr. Wassinger. Thank you for the opportunity to testify,
regarding the Bureau of Land Management's experience in
implementing the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act of 2000. We appreciate the continuing interest
you and the entire Oregon Congressional Delegation have shown
in the implementation of the Steens Act. Many in this room have
lived here for decades and generations, and it is your wise
stewardship and examples that we look to in our management of
public lands within the Steens.
Secretary Norton talks about the ``4Cs''--consultation,
cooperation, and communication, all in the service of
conservation. The Steens Act is an excellent example of her
guiding principles put into action. The wide array of natural
characteristics, communities and desires, and competing
interests, provides for many complex challenges and rewarding
opportunities.
The 12-member Steens Mountain Advisory Council was
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior on August 14, 2001,
pursuant to the Steens Act. Steens Mountain Advisory Council
has met four times since the first meeting in October of last
year. Four additional meetings are scheduled for the remainder
of 2002. Issues--including recreation, access, education,
grazing, wilderness, and firefighting in the Steens--have all
been addressed with the Council this year.
The Steens Act requires that we develop a comprehensive
management plan within 4 years of the passage of the Act, to
set long-term management direction for the area. We're working
in close collaboration with the Steens Mountain Advisory
Council, Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Council, other
Federal and state agencies, local governments, tribes, and with
the public, to identify future management direction for the
entire planning area. A draft management plan and environmental
impact statement are expected to be available for a 90-day
public review period, in the spring of 2003. The proposed plan
and final EIS are, then, anticipated by the winter of 2003-
2004.
Title VI of the Exchange Act mandates five land acquisition
exchanges. Those exchanges have been a major focus of BLM's
efforts over the last year, and the final exchange was
completed in early April. In addition, two Land and Water
Conservation Fund purchases, involving inholdings within the
wilderness, have been completed since the passage of the Act.
$25 million for additional land acquisitions and conservation
easements is authorized through the Land and Water Conservation
Fund by the Steens Act. As we receive appropriations for such
acquisitions, we will work cooperatively with the Steens
Mountain Advisory Council and local landowners to maximize the
use of such monies.
Access to wilderness inholdings and private inholdings is
governed by Section 112(e) of the Steens Act and by the
Wilderness Act of 1964. Both require reasonable and adequate
access, while minimizing impacts on designated wilderness. We
are committed to addressing this issue. The Steens Act requires
that grazing within the wilderness shall be administered in
accordance with the Wilderness Act and the guidelines
established by Congress in 1990. The BLM intends to fully
comply with this direction and is preparing environmental
analyses to analyze the potential use of motorized vehicles and
equipment, and practical alternatives that may exist for this
purpose.
For as long as people have settled in southeastern Oregon,
they have used the Steens Mountain area for recreational
purposes. Those uses are both individual and commercial. For
many of the commercial activities, the BLM is required to issue
special recreation permits. The BLM Burns District staff is
preparing environmental analyses to analyze the impacts of
current permitted recreational activities on public land within
the Steens Mountain area, and, in particular, the Steens
Mountain wilderness area. The EA's will identify impacts to
resources and uses, while providing for streamlined
administrative processes, for permitting to be more responsive
to our commercial recreation-service partners. We are deeply
aware of the importance of recreational issues to the local
public. We will continue to work closely with the Steens
Mountain Advisory Council and all users, whether recreational
or commercial, to find ways to best address their needs in the
context of the Steens Act and other applicable laws and
regulations.
In conclusion, as we continue to move forward on planning
and implementation of the Steens Act, I want to give you my
assurance that we will continue to involve all interested
parties who live in, recreate on, derive their livelihood from,
and love Steens Mountain. We have learned much from those who
call Steens ``home,'' and we will continue to look for them for
advice and guidance. That completes my initial comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wassinger follows:]
Statement of Chuck Wassinger, Oregon Associate State Director, Bureau
of Land Management
Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the Bureau of
Land Management's (BLM) experience in implementing the Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-399.
We appreciate the continuing interest you and the entire Oregon
Congressional delegation have shown in the implementation of the Steens
Act.
Steens Mountain offers exceptional natural and geologic diversity.
The mountain provides visitors and residents with spectacular views of
deep, glacial gorges, stunning colorful alpine wildflower meadows, high
desert plant communities and the opportunity to see pronghorn antelope,
elk, mule deer, wild horses, bighorn sheep, and raptors. The 52-mile
Steens Mountain Backcountry Byway offers access to four campgrounds on
the mountain and affords remarkable views of Kiger Gorge, the east rim,
and wild horse overlooks.
None of this is news to the many people here today who love the
Steens. Many of you have lived here for decades and generations and it
is your wise stewardship and example that we look to in our management
of the public lands within the Steens.
Secretary Norton talks about the ``4Cs''--consultation,
cooperation, and communication all in the service of conservation. The
Steens Act is a stunning example of her guiding principles put
into action. Passage of the Act was a culmination of a cooperative
effort at the local level. This was not a top-down Washington-driven
proposal. Rather, it was the result of the hard work of the Oregon
Congressional Delegation, Governor Kitzhaber, local land owners, users
of the land, and local conservation organizations, to provide for long-
term protection of the cultural, economic, ecological, and social
health of this area.
The wide array of natural characteristics, community needs and
desires, and competing interests, provides for many complex challenges
and rewarding opportunities. I'd like to address some of the steps we
have taken toward implementation, as well as some of the challenges
that lie ahead of us.
Steens Mountain Advisory Council
The 12-member Steens Mountain Advisory Council was appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior on August 14, 2001--pursuant to the Steens
Act. Under the provisions of Subtitle D of the Steens Act, the Advisory
Council is charged with advising the Secretary in the management of the
Steens Area and in promoting cooperative management. In addition, the
Secretary is charged with consulting with the advisory committee on the
preparation and implementation of the management plan for the area. The
Steens Mountain Advisory Council has met four times since their first
meeting in October of last year. Four additional meetings are scheduled
for the remainder of 2002. Issues including recreation, access,
education, grazing, wilderness, and firefighting in the Steens have
been addressed by the Council this year.
Steens Mountain Planning Efforts
The Steens Act requires that we develop a comprehensive management
plan within four years of the passage of the Act to set long-term
management direction for the area. In accordance with that planning
process, in late February and early March of this year, the BLM held a
series of meetings to enlist citizen help in identifying planning
issues. The planning area consists of approximately 1.7 million acres
of Federal land including the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management
and Protection Area. We are working in close collaboration with the
Steens Mountain Advisory Council, the Southeast Oregon Resource
Advisory Council, other Federal and State agencies, local governments,
Tribes, and with the public, to identify future management direction
for the entire planning area.
The information that we have gathered at the four scoping meetings,
and through written comments, has been used to pinpoint issues and
develop planning criteria and alternatives for the management of the
area. The public comment period ended on April 15. After the comment
period ended, we assessed comments, finalized planning criteria and
worked on fine tuning draft alternatives. A document entitled ``Summary
of the Analysis of the Management Situation'' was published this
earlier spring to allow further public review of management
opportunities. A draft management plan and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) are expected to be available for a 90-day public review
period in the Spring of 2003. The proposed plan and final EIS are then
anticipated by Winter 2003/2004.
Exchanges and Acquisitions
Title VI of the Steens Act mandates five land acquisition/
exchanges. The Act authorized, and Congress subsequently appropriated,
over $5 million to complete these acquisitions. Those exchanges have
been a major focus of BLM's efforts over the last year and the final
exchange was completed in early April. In addition, two Land and Water
Conservation Fund purchases, involving inholdings within the
wilderness, have been completed since passage of the Act.
Twenty-five million dollars for additional land acquisitions and
conservation easements is authorized through the Land and Water
Conservation Fund by the Steens Act. As we receive appropriations for
such acquisitions we will work cooperatively with the Steens Mountain
Advisory Council, and local landowners to maximize the use of such
monies. We recognize that acquisitions and conservation easements are
an important part of successfully implementing the Steens Act, and to
that end we will continue to work with you, Governor Kitzhaber, the
entire Congressional delegation, and all interested stakeholders and
publics.
Access
Access to wilderness inholdings and private inholdings is governed
by Section 112(e) of the Steens Act and by the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Both require reasonable and adequate access while minimizing impacts on
designated wilderness. We are committed to addressing this issue. Both
the Steens Act and the Wilderness Act provide some flexibility for
allowing access to private inholdings. Both recognize the importance of
providing the access and protecting wilderness values. We are presently
investigating access options, and through an open dialogue with the
public will provide for an analysis, disclosure of impacts, and
discussion of the various options. Two access options currently under
consideration are either a cooperative management agreement, or the
more traditional permitting process.
The BLM intends to provide reasonable access to inholders in a
manner that protects wilderness characteristics. The BLM Burns District
is presently preparing the required Environmental Assessment (EA) to
address inholding access needs in the Steens Wilderness in conformance
with the Steens Act, the Wilderness Act, and BLM's Wilderness
Management Regulations.
Livestock Grazing Permittees
The Steens Act requires that grazing within wilderness shall be
administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act and the guidelines
established by Congress in 1990. Those guidelines provide direction and
examples of appropriate use of motorized vehicles and motorized
equipment where practical alternatives do not exist. They also require
that any occasional use of motorized equipment be authorized within the
grazing permits for the area involved. The BLM intends to fully comply
with this direction, and is preparing an EA to analyze the potential
use of motorized vehicles and equipment, and practical alternatives
that may exist for this purpose.
Recreational Use
For as long as people have settled in southeast Oregon, they have
used the Steens Mountain area for recreational purposes. Those uses are
both individual and commercial. For many of the commercial activities
the BLM is required to issue special recreation permits. The BLM Burns
District staff are preparing EAs to analyze the impacts of current
permitted recreational activities on public land within the Steens
Mountain Area and, in particular, the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area.
These EAs will identify impacts to resources and uses, while providing
for streamlined administrative processes for permitting to be more
responsive to our commercial recreation service partners. The National
Environmental Policy Act process will analyze all options, current
policy and the comments from the public and partners. BLM will work
with the Steens Mountain Advisory Council before a final decision is
made.
The BLM Burns District is also working with off-highway vehicle
users to help them better understand their responsibilities under the
Steens Act. Section 112 (b)(1) of the Act clearly prohibits the off-
road use of motorized or mechanized vehicles on Federal lands, limiting
their use to designated roads and trails as determined in the
forthcoming management plan.
We are deeply aware of the importance of recreation issues to our
local publics. We will continue to work closely with the Steens
Mountain Advisory Council and all users, whether recreational or
commercial, to find ways to best address their needs in the context of
the Steens Act and other applicable laws and regulations.
Conclusion
As we continue to move forward on planning and implementation of
the Steens Act, I give you my personal assurance that we will continue
to involve all the interested parties who live in, recreate on, derive
their livelihood from and love Steens Mountain. We have learned much
from those who call the Steens home and we will continue to look to
them for advice and guidance.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Wassinger. We
appreciate your being here today. I know I have several
questions I would like to propose to you, and certainly the
gentlemen on either side can certainly assist in answering
these. And then, Congressman Simpson probably has some, as
well.
I guess the first problem--the one that draws us here
today--is, after reading a number of the witness's testimony,
there seems to be a singular message that comes out, and that
relates specifically to historical access that was assured to
those involved in the development of the legislation. And
there's a sense that that is now been seriously threatened or
impeded, or, perhaps, will be.
For example, Stacy Davies, manager of the Oregon Springs
Ranch, states in his testimony, ``Historic and reasonable
access is guaranteed in Section 4, under the Steens Act, as
well as under the Wilderness Act.'' Yet, the Bureau has
verbally put many landowners on notice they will be required to
obtain a permit or lease to continue to access their property.
In addition, during the 2000 negotiations on the Steens
Legislation, the environmental community favored wilderness
management, because congressional guidelines in wilderness
areas allowed pre-existing grazing to continue. Those of us in
the Oregon Delegation, and other members, were all under the
impression that historical access would be guaranteed, and we
thought we spelled it out pretty clearly. Were we wrong?
Mr. Wassinger. The short and, probably, most concise answer
is that historic uses were protected and provided for in the
Act. So, if those uses exist, it's not a question. That
question has been answered. The question that has been posed to
us is: How that access or those rights are exercised. And the
reason that we are preparing environmental analyses is to
determine how those rights are exercised, and if there are any
modifications. And we haven't gotten to the point of
determining what, or if, any modifications might occur. If
those modifications exist, those modifications would only be
necessary in order to protect, or more appropriately protect,
the wilderness values.
Mr. Walden. What about protecting historical access? Isn't
that of an equal value in the law?
Mr. Wassinger. Yes. Our interpretation of the guidelines,
however, requires a review and assessment of those--of that
access use, since we're specifically talking about access--and
the determination of continuing, under reasonable conditions,
that use.
Mr. Walden. What leads you to have to do a NEPA on this? Is
this coming from your solicitor? From the direction of your
solicitor?
Mr. Wassinger. We are getting legal advice that there is
discretion created by the creation of the wilderness area--a
change in direction and mandate, essentially. And that new
information must be assessed in an environmental analysis.
There's a more practical level, though, Congressman. We've had
a tremendous amount of experience here in Oregon with
implementing actions where there is a possibility of a changed
condition, without conducting a NEPA analysis, and, very
frankly, our track record has not been very good. We're
challenged in court. We have not been sustained. And so it puts
at risk, I believe--potentially puts at risk those historic
uses.
Mr. Walden. So, your solicitor has issued some directives?
Mr. Wassinger. This is advice. They've advised us that NEPA
does apply in this situation.
Mr. Walden. Is it possible to get a copy of that advice?
Mr. Wassinger. Yes. We would be happy to submit it.
Mr. Walden. If you could submit it, that would be good. How
does BLM reconcile its actions, in light of 112(c), which
requires a secretary to consult with the Advisory Council and
the public, when it comes to these access issues. I think,
specifically, later, there are people testifying that there
have been roads and trails that have been, sort of,
unilaterally closed. And yet, the Act speaks to not doing that
without first consulting with the public. Have there been any
roads or trails that have been closed?
Mr. Wassinger. Do you want to speak to that?
Mr. Dyer. Sure. My name's Tom Dyer, District Manager, BLM,
Burns, Oregon. The only roads and trails that were closed, were
closed in the wilderness itself. Wilderness, by its nature,
doesn't have roads and trails. As part of the law, there was
some identified non-wilderness routes established in that
document. The rest of the area was automatically closed off, as
far as the roads. And it refers to, I believe in the maps--and
I'll refer to September 18, 2000, as being the maps--And I
believe we even have a copy of the map showing that, as
referenced in there. Those were the only roads that were
closed.
Mr. Walden. So, you're telling me the only roads or trails
that were closed were within the new wilderness boundaries?
None anywhere else?
Mr. Dyer. Correct.
Mr. Walden. That's your statement. OK. I guess the question
I have is: I thought you do a NEPA or an EA when there's a
changed condition. If you have a historical use, that will
continue, how is that a changed condition?
Mr. Wassinger. The changed condition was the establishment
of the wilderness itself. There were more issues related to
that, but, that's basically the simple answer to your question.
Mr. Walden. How do we ever write a law that--This
frustrates me, because I understand you're trying to follow
your set of rules and laws, but when we talked about reasonable
access, continued preservation of historical use, historical
access, proper property rights--and we'll get into the running
camp later on in this, because the e-mails I've got in my files
from the Steens-Alvord Coalition--I mean, they actually say,
``Oh, no, that's not an issue.'' I'm going to get into that in
a minute. It's, like, this frustration, when we think we're
writing something that says, ``Preserve this historical access
to private property.'' Then we see a NEPA come up, and then,
you know, this concerns me again. Maybe you can address this.
OK, you do a NEPA--You do a full public process about whether
or not I can continue to access my property--and then that's
subject to some sort of litigation and appeal, and then, maybe,
a permit, and then, maybe, a fee for a permit.
Mr. Wassinger. Congressman, again--
Mr. Walden. What do we have to say in the statute?
Mr. Wassinger. Well, I'm not an expert on legislation, so I
can't speak to that directly, Congressman. But the question, we
think, is clear--and we're getting advice that is clear--that
access was provided for in this legislation. Again, the
question is not ``If.'' The question is ``How?'' And that's
where the discretion and the requirement for public disclosure
and new decisionmaking may come forward.
Mr. Walden. Let me ask you this, then: I'm a private
landowner--and I'm not, but for the sake of this discussion--
I'm a private landowner up on the mountain. You send me the
form, which I've seen, that says, ``How many times did you
access your property in the last year, and how many do you
anticipate...'' I don't remember all the columns. But, let's
say I tell you I accessed it 100 times last year, and I may
access it 150 times next year. Do you have the authority, then,
to tell me, ``That's too many times,'' if that's my historical
amount of access?
Mr. Wassinger. Do you want to take a shot at this?
Mr. Walden. We need to pull that tape, on the mikes. OK.
Now we've got flexibility on the mikes. Maybe we can get
flexibility on access.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Dyer. Congressman, I need flexibility.
Mr. Walden. But what about that? You see what I'm getting
at? My concern is that, if I'm telling you that I did 100 trips
last year--In the back of my mind, I've got this little bird of
distrust going off, saying, ``If I tell you 100, you're going
to come back and tell me, `You don't need 100; you only need
75.''' And that's this year. And, the next thing I know, it'll
be 50, and the noose just tightens. And that's what we're
trying to avoid here, by putting in the statute ``historic.''.
Mr. Dyer. And that's what we're trying to fine-tune: What
is historic, and what is reasonable? I'm with you. We're with
you all the way on this. We're trying to come up with what that
is. And, like you say, that's part of a lot of the discussions
on the front end of it. And we still have a lot of that
discretion that's associated with that. What is reasonable? You
know, what do you need to access? How does that impact the
wilderness values this time? The thing that we would love to be
able to do is say, ``Hey, you got it. We don't even have to
address it any other way.'' But the direction that we have is,
we've got to run it through a NEPA-type open process, so the
public can see, as well as provide that--
Mr. Walden. But I guess my question, then, is: If the
public sees the historical use, is that good enough? If I say
100 trips is what I've historically done, do you come back and
say, ``Sorry, the public thinks you only need 50 trips onto
your property, and you only need it from this one point, not
the three you've always used''? Is that--Do we come in conflict
with the statute?
Mr. Dyer. We could, based on the information that we've
seen. The biggest question that we'd probably be walking up
against is trying to sit down at the table and say, ``OK, this
concern has come in from this group; this has, from this
other.'' Maybe there's a way to meet all of your needs, as well
as to meet those needs of the wilderness values and so forth. I
don't have the answer. The direction to get everything out and
open, that we've been given, is: Work through the NEPA process.
I guess, this is, kind of, the direction that we've been given
on that.
Mr. Walden. And that's from your solicitor?
Mr. Dyer. I think, in a lot of cases, you're using case
law. You know, I think Chuck was right on. We've been in this
game of NEPA, and coming up with the decisions. And where we
really run into problems is when it really looks like it's an
arbitrary decision, without a lot of the background, a lot of
the history, with the information that's brought forward. So,
these are the things, that we're ending up trying to bring in.
Mr. Walden. So, even though we spell it out in a statute
that we will protect historic access--historic values on this
mountain--You're telling me all that can go sideways, through a
NEPA process, if enough people in the public say, ``That's too
many trips into your ranch''?
Mr. Dyer. I don't think that. I think that, maybe, the
thing of the NEPA document is to find out what that is, and
then see if there is opportunity. Should there be at least a
concern associated with wilderness values and impacting? For
example, maybe you go in here five times a year. Maybe the five
times a year, you could base around when it's not so muddy, you
know, something like that. Or, that kind of stuff. Try to focus
in on that. Like I said, I'm--We're trying to--
Mr. Walden. I understand. I mean, you don't want to damage
the rangeland or destroy the roads, for that matter. But,
common sense, probably, over the years has prevailed in those
decision by those who access their property, because, if you
run the ruts too deep, it's hard to get in the next time.
Mr. Dyer. And that's one of the reason we've got to work
closely together.
Mr. Walden. Chuck?
Mr. Wassinger. Congressman, let me approach your question
from a little bit different direction. One of the things that
we're very concerned about, and one of the things I alluded to
in my mention of our litigation record on NEPA, is--The real
issue here is: Public disclosure. Have we disclosed to the
public the activities that are going to occur? The legislation
provides a tremendous amount of direction on--Activities should
continue, but is somewhat--We're somewhat frustrated as well--
cloudy on how those should continue. Yes, there's a lot of
different perceptions, I assume, in this room. If we asked
everyone, we would find a different impression of what those
words mean. The real issue is: Have you complied with the
procedures? Had you complied with the procedures, then you are
less subject to legal challenge and being turned over in your
decision.
Mr. Walden. As you work on sorting out the cloudiness
part--We understand that, too, because you can't be totally
prescriptive in the legislation. Plus, you wanted--We wanted
the local input through the SMAC. We realized that this would
be the toughest part of this legislation. But, I guess the
question I have is: Do you consult the legislative record from
our Committee hearings and the debate on the floor, as you try
to find your way through the clouds?
Mr. Wassinger. We're looking for any direction, any
guidance, any information, that can help us make a better
decision.
Mr. Walden. So, you are looking at what those of us who
voted on this said, when we voted on it?
Mr. Wassinger. Absolutely.
Mr. Walden. And in the hearings, as the intent behind the
Act?
Mr. Wassinger. The one thing I will speak to just in
general, Congressman, is that we can clearly understand the
intent, as we read the record--as we read the testimony. But,
trying to match that up, with the specific legal direction we
had, is where we have great difficulty from time to time. In
other words, the law will clearly say, ``This is your
discretion, period.'' And trying to match those up, sometimes,
is difficult. So, that's the only qualifier I would make to
your statement.
Mr. Walden. All right. I may have some other questions for
the panel. Mr. Chairman, do you want to take some now?
Mr. Simpson. I just want to ask a couple questions. One
is--as I sit and listen to the testimony--As I read your
testimony on the Livestock Grazing Permittees section, it says,
``The Steens Act requires that grazing within wilderness shall
be administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act and the
guidelines established by Congress in 1990. Those guidelines
provide direction and examples of appropriate use of motorized
vehicles and motorized equipment, where practical alternatives
do not exist. They also require any occasional use of motorized
equipment be authorized within the grazing permits for the area
involved.'' Could you give me an example of where it's
currently used, and a practical alternative may exist, and what
a practical alternative may be?
Mr. Brown. Yes. My name is Miles Brown. I'm the field
manager for the Andrews Resource Area, Burns District of the
Bureau of Land Management. We've been wrestling with this one,
too. Appendix A talks about practical alternatives, and it
talks about rule-of-thumb, that historical uses would continue,
in regards to motorized access. It also talks about what
authorization for those uses would be placed in the grazing
permits. And placing that in the permit is an action--is a
decision--that could be appealed or could be litigated. And so,
what we're trying to do right now is: (1) collect baseline
information, so we know what was the historical use of
motorized equipment in what is now wilderness--what uses that
the grazing permittees think they are going to need to
continue. And we haven't totally reached the discussion of
practical alternatives. A practical alternative could be--I'm
just making this up--perhaps, one is making 15 trips in to haul
salt blocks to a single area. Maybe one could try to limit that
to, maybe, five trips in. Take more salt blocks, cache them,
and then spread them out from there. You know, so what we're
looking at is: How can we balance--On the one hand, we're
charged with protecting wilderness values and managing
according to the Wilderness Act. But, on the other hand, we
have historical uses, and we have the use of motorized,
mechanized equipment. And so, what we're trying very carefully
to do is balance those--determine what is the balance.
And, from a practical standpoint on the ground, we've got
three grazing permittees that are in wilderness. And we've had
excellent relationships with those three grazing permittees.
We've been through tough, tough issues with those grazing
permittees. We have biological opinions on threatened fishing,
in one case. We have a model conservation agreement to protect
redband trout in another area. And we've worked through maybe
even tougher issues than these. And one of the ways we worked
through those was going through the NEPA process, because by
going through that process, we're being open to the public
about what we're doing. Because, what we find out is--I get
lots of e-mails, just as you get e-mail about all these
concerns. I get stacks of e-mails, concerned about the running
camp, or this question about motorized, mechanized access.
``Why are you allowing it now? You shouldn't allow any of it.''
And so, we have a lot of different viewpoints, I think that
much of this is not based on fact. And what we can do, by going
through the NEPA process, is: Collect the baseline information;
work with the grazing permittees; get the facts out there; and
then, be open about what our analysis and what my rationale is
behind the decision. And, if I've got a good rationale, with
good baseline facts, and I've been open with the public, then
we'll succeed. What I don't want to do is lose. By just making
an arbitrary decision, say, working with Roaring Springs and
saying, ``Fine, Stacy, you just go right ahead and keep doing
what you're doing,'' I can guarantee you there will be an
injunction, and we'll be in district court, and we will lose.
And, Roaring Springs will lose. We don't want to be in that
position.
Mr. Simpson. Let me ask--A lot of the--You mentioned a
number of e-mails you get and that kind of stuff. Do you think
a lot of these are from people who were not involved in the
original decision, when this Act was negotiated, essentially?
And expect something different than what is currently there--
than what this Act provides for?
Mr. Brown. I get it both ways. But, yes, I think when the
legislation was created, the Steens became national. The issue
became national.
Mr. Simpson. Because it is a unique piece of legislation
that was put together, and I wonder how much--You know, Idaho
has, probably, the largest wilderness area in the lower 48, and
I'm wondering how many people expect, when they come, that it
is a traditional type of wilderness, if that's a proper term.
This is a different type of management plan, with all sorts of
things intertwined.
Mr. Dyer. Mr. Congressman, there is certainly--I get lots
of e-mail regarding that--that it should be strictly according
to the Wilderness Act, which it should. But the Wilderness Act
also provides that the wilderness area be managed for the
protection of wilderness values, and for other such purposes
for which the legislation was created. And that refers back to
me. The 13 purposes for which the Act was created, and the 5
objectives of this CMPA. And so, we are in a unique position.
This is a unique piece of legislation. And I think we have to
be very careful about being as open as we can, because this is
new and unique, in balancing those 13 purposes and 5 objectives
with protection of those wilderness values. And I think we need
to illuminate to those people that weren't involved and didn't
understand the intent, as to why we're making the decisions
we're making.
Mr. Simpson. It is kind of an interesting debate that goes
on. And, not to sound arrogant or anything, but someone said to
me one time, ``Wilderness is what Congress declares wilderness
is--however you write the legislation.'' We have wilderness
areas in this country that actually have paved roads running
through the middle of it, because they were allowed when that
Wilderness Act was created. And so, I find this a fascinating
piece of legislation. One other thing I'd like to add is that
we talked about reasonable access. Reasonable to who? And, how
do you define reasonable?
Mr. Wassinger. You've talked about your frustration as
legislators--creating legislation and then assuming that it's
understood what you meant. Our frustration is wrestling with
the terms like ``reasonable.'' In the public review process,
quite often, by hearing all points of view; by going back to
the original intent of the legislation; by pulling all this
together in a public forum, subject to public exposure, we're
able to come up with the answer to that question. And it's
almost different--It's almost assuredly different in every
case.
Mr. Simpson. Well, I appreciate the difficulty of your job,
in trying to actually implement something, and also trying to
make it, as you say, bulletproof from lawsuits. I think a lot
of us are tired of management-by-lawsuit. And this is something
that I would like to see work, and I would hope that--and I
believe that you're trying to make it work. And I know
Congressman Walden is, and the rest of us. Because, as I said
in my opening statement, ``If it doesn't work here, I don't
know where it's going to work.'' So, I appreciate the toughness
of your job, and I'll turn this back over to Congressman
Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. As you might imagine, I have a
couple other questions. First, let me help you on what
``reasonable access'' means. Having been the original drafter
of legislation, I took it to mean--``Reasonable access'' meant
``continue what's been done up to this point.'' Historical
access. I realize I wasn't the only one involved in the
drafting. There are others who may have slightly different
views on that, I realize. But, from a legislator's standpoint--
at least this one's--When I talked about ``reasonable,'' it was
kind of ``what we've been doing.'' And it's like that
Oldsmobile commercial that was out a year or two ago. This
isn't your father's Oldsmobile. This isn't it your father's
wilderness area. This is the first cow-free wilderness in the
country. It's a precedent. And so, I think, as much as that is
a precedent, there's a precedent on the other side, too, about
enshrining these historical uses. Whether it's access; whether
it's recreation; whether it's the kind of work that's done on
the mountain.
So, for what it's worth, as you struggle with trying to
find what ``reasonable'' means, think in terms of how it's been
done in the past. And I recognize you've got to do what you
have to do about lawsuits, but we tried to make it as clear as
we could.
Let me ask you some questions about the recreational permit
issue, because this one has probably garnered more attention
than any other. And I guess the first thing--I'd like to know,
kind of, the current situation. Have there been any new
recreational permits issued, since the Act was signed into law?
Or, have there been any--
Mr. Wassinger. I don't believe so.
Mr. Brown. We had eight existing long-term permits--five-
year permits, I believe. That might not be exact. I think we're
down to about seven. One person quit. Those are long-term, 5-
year permits. Those are people who, historically, have used the
mountain for quite some time. The only permits that we've
issued since the Act are one-time permits, meaning they have an
activity for a set period of time, whether it's a day or it's a
week. During the interim, we're not entertaining multiple-year
permits, until we go through working with the public and with
the Steens Mountain Advisory Council on the resource management
plan.
Mr. Walden. So, your justification for 1-day or 1-week
permits is their, sort of, diminutus use? Is that--I'm just
curious why that doesn't require some further evaluation.
Mr. Brown. We did do a programmatic environmental
assessment for day use, and most of those fall within that
category. The programmatic addresses, typically, ``Well, you're
staying on the road and you're in the campground. You're not
doing multiple-night camping in the wilderness, and that sort
of thing.''.
Mr. Walden. And is one of those Cycle Oregon?
Mr. Brown. Yeah. Cycle Oregon was actually done under an
agreement, a cooperative agreement, rather than permit.
Mr. Walden. And how many people were involved there, on the
mountain?
Mr. Brown. Oh, gosh, that must have been 1500 to 2000.
Mr. Walden. 1500 or 2000? At one time?
Mr. Brown. At one time.
Mr. Walden. Did any of them stray into the wilderness?
Mr. Brown. Not that we're aware of. We have people up there
monitoring that. They all stayed on the loop road. One of the
conditions of the agreement was they were not to go off the
right-of-way of the road.
Mr. Walden. Not at all? Not to walk, not to--
Mr. Brown. If you were part of the Cycle Oregon tour, you
were not supposed to do that.
Mr. Walden. Was there one issue--the Full Circle Tours
permit, for this year?
Mr. Brown. I'm not sure. This year? Perhaps last year. Yes,
it was a one-time--
Mr. Walden. What is Full Circle Tour? Do you know what
that's about, personally?
Mr. Brown. I don't know, exactly.
Mr. Walden. I thought you were the expert.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Brown. Well, I wouldn't--I'd guess, and I wouldn't want
to give the wrong answer. I think they typically work along the
road, and look at natural features.
Mr. Walden. I'm just curious: How many of those temporary
permits are being issued?
Mr. Brown. Oh, I don't think we have a half a dozen. And
some of those--Some of those, historically, we know have gone
on in the mountain, and it was BLM's choice in the past not to
permit them. And, in fact, we did do a Technical Procedures
Review, if I can just elaborate a little bit. And that's an
internal review of our own procedures. And that was 2 years
ago, I believe. And it was found that much of our permitting
was actually out of compliance with our manuals and our
regulations. And that's why we had started to bring some of
those gradually into permit--under permitting. But what we've
told them is: We're not going to go--Until the RMP is done,
we're not going to issue any more 5-year, long-term permits.
There are the existing seven permits, that are for 5 years. But
I think there are historical uses that existed on that
mountain, and I think it would be very unfair of the Bureau,
who recognized those uses, even though they didn't permit
them--They recognized them; they knew about them; they told
them in the past they didn't need a permit--to suddenly tell
them that they can't come up on the mountain anymore.
Mr. Walden. And then, how does that go against the
timeline, for example, of the running camp? In terms of how
fast to move to grant that permit? I thought I'd heard
somewhere--Maybe it wasn't even the running camp--But, one of
these folks that had a permit--It was coming right up to the
deadline, before they would know whether or not they could
operate for the season. Is that true?
Mr. Brown. We ran into some problems with that, last year,
yes.
Mr. Walden. Why was that?
Mr. Brown. Workload. Implementing everything with the
Steens Act. Trying to gather up enough information. The folks--
The permittees that have the 5-year permits--They have 5-year
permits. So, that is not an issue this year. Regardless if we
finish the NEPA on those permits, they will be allowed to
continue.
Mr. Walden. How does that differ, then, from if you have a
grazing permit the runs 10 years? One of the issues that has
been brought to my attention is that there's a process under
law to do a review at the end of the permit cycle, and I
thought under--Maybe it's the Arizona language, the Colorado
language--pretty clearly says, ``Just because even a new
wilderness designation occurs, is not reason to go in and upend
that permit and do an evaluation.'' Is that not an accurate
reading of those--of that language?
Mr. Brown. It could be. The issue is not so much that there
is wilderness, although wilderness certainly highlights the
issue. The issue is: Our Technical Procedures Review found us
to be out of compliance--that, on the 5-year, there should have
been NEPA in the past.
Mr. Walden. On the grazing?
Mr. Brown. On the five--I'm talking special-recreation use
permits.
Mr. Walden. OK. But, what about grazing permits? I sort of
shifted gears on you.
Mr. Brown. Oh, there should be NEPA on those, and if there
hasn't been NEPA in the past--Before you issue that 10-year
permit, you should do NEPA on those.
Mr. Walden. Right. But, aren't you actually going back of
the middle of those permit timelines now, and doing evaluations
on how they're operated?
Mr. Brown. On some of them, yes, based on the schedule. And
the schedule for the evaluation, typically, is based on the
issues at hand, meaning--
Mr. Walden. So, passage of this Act has nothing to do with
evaluations you're doing on the grazing permits?
Mr. Brown. Absolutely. It does not.
Mr. Dyer. I want to, if it's OK, provide some more
information associated with Cycle Oregon. Cycle Oregon was
something that was kind of a community-sponsored interest
event. I can tell you that the direction of the--The alumnus
tried to direct that to the existing permits that were already
out there. For whatever reason, it didn't pan out. And it was a
concern that they identified. They were very concerned, because
why they were going to have Cycle Oregon was to get to the top
of the mountain. They wanted to see the Steens. That was a part
of the whole deal of coming over here. And, if there's any
fault with that particular permit, it probably lies strictly
with me, because I felt very strongly to try to make this work.
As part of this law, the agreements were fairly important--
working with the public; working with groups. And I think we
ended up with, roughly, 800 riders who ended up going out there
on the mountain, not the total 2000, or whatever there were--
Mr. Walden. Pretty steep climb.
Mr. Dyer. Yeah. But they went up, and I think they did a
pretty good job, now. If they had gone over on--locked on the
wilderness--They may have. We had people that were up there,
trying to monitor that as best they could, and did the best job
they could. Mark Sherborne was up there. He monitored it, as
well as one of the SMAC members that represents the
environmental community, was up there monitoring. And I think
we even had individuals from some of our existing special-
recreation programs, that were up there to watch to see how it
went. Based on everything I heard, it went pretty well. It was
also an extremely important and big event, I believe, to the
community of Burns.
Mr. Walden. I understand that. I was just curious how the--
what the process is for these individual permits, versus those
for the long-term. Certainly, no criticism of Cycle Oregon. I
admire people who can do that as well as they do.
Mr. Dyer. If that helped--I thought it might help a little
bit.
Mr. Walden. We probably ought to move on. All right. Well,
thank you very much for your testimony and for helping us
understand what you're facing and for answering our questions.
We may have additional questions, which we'll submit to you in
writing or, perhaps, even talk to you later this afternoon.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wassinger. Thank you.
Mr. Walden. If we could have the next panel come up. Panel
2 will be Harland Yriarte, the Director of Steens Mountain
Running Camp; Cindy Witzel, Recreation Permit Holder, from
Frenchglen; Bill Marlett, Executive Director, Oregon Natural
Desert Association; and, Mr. George Nickas, Executive Director,
Wilderness Watch, Missoula, Montana. Come on up. Is Mr. Nickas
here? OK, apparently, he is--I am told he is not here. We
wanted to, certainly, extend an invitation for him to come and
share his concerns.
Mr. Walden. We'll start, now, with Harland. And, then we'll
go to Bill, and then to Cindy. Thank you, again, for joining us
today. We look forward to hearing you testimony. Harland?
STATEMENT OF HARLAND YRIARTE, DIRECTOR, STEENS MOUNTAIN RUNNING
CAMP
Mr. Yriarte. Thank you very much. Before I get started, I
just want to say I support the four land exchanges and five
boundary adjustments proposed in the draft legislation. And,
one other caveat. My testimony will be presented by using one
or two word definitions of descriptions taken out of the Basque
version Webster's dictionary.
[Laughter.]
So, there is a Basque version of the Webster's dictionary.
I didn't know if you knew that or not. So, you've got to listen
real close for some of this. I believe that the Senator--or,
the Congressman--from Idaho is probably real familiar with the
Basque population.
First of all, the definitions are these: Harney County; the
greatest hard-working folks--people--that I've ever been
associated with, that really need an economic break at this
time. Me--That's me. Definition of me: Last Basque left on
Steens Mountain.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. Probably the only one in Eugene, too.
Mr. Yriarte. Well, given the trouble there is around here,
you have a clue on what really happened to the dinosaurs;
followed by the Indians; the sheep; the sheepherders; now the
cows, and, eventually, cowboys; and, maybe now, the kids. My
occupation is herding kids. I've got nine of my own. I teach
and coach at Lane Community College. I run a running camp, and
have since 1975, on this beautiful mountain that God created.
And I think what happens is, sometimes when you worship
creations, versus the creator, you start having problems.
Steens Mountain staff: Caring, loyal, educated, great
teachers, ethical--and there's a lot of them here today. Kids.
Kids, out of this dictionary, is not another four-letter word.
K-I-D-S. They're not a four-letter word. They're the future
leaders of our country. They're our sons and daughters. They're
your sons and daughters. Definition of ``Clients'': Definition
of ``Clients'' is what these kids are referred to and described
by Wilderness Watch ALERT flyer, last fall. The other
description was ``hoards.'' Around here, ``hoards'' means
mosquitoes. Other descriptions, in this particular Wilderness
Watch ALERT flyer that came out last fall: ``Hoards of runners
suddenly streaming down canyon ledges and racing past the camps
of visitors to the wilderness.'' By count, there were only
three people, in the total 2 weeks of canyons last year, and
all of them were smiling when you went by. Which brings me to
the definition of ``Spin'': What Wilderness Watch
representatives are very good at. Wilderness Watch definition,
``Basque'': An environmental group whose extreme views on kids
in the Steens Mountain wilderness area are out of step with
mainstream Americans and mainstream environmental individuals
and groups.
Ron Bellamy, Registered Guard, Eugene--and, by the way,
Eugene is a very hotbed of environmentalism--Most runner's are
environmentalists. This hits hard with the heart of Eugene. In
his column, May 9, 2002, he called it ``Misguided Meddling.''
He said, ``You ought to be outraged at the environmental group,
Wilderness Watch, in Missoula, Montana, that wants to keep the
young runners out of the wilderness. It's stuff like this that
makes environmentalists look like idiots. It does more damage
to the general cause than a chainsaw.''.
Wilderness Watch: Voted Most Likely to Litigate or
Challenge the BLM, if a permit is issued which allows kids to
go on the Big Day. And that's the contention, is the Big Day.
It's nothing else. Definition, ``Big Day'': The camp's
highlight--the main meal, if you will. Wilderness Watch says,
``We don't want to run you out of business.'' But, hey, how
many people want to go to Thanksgiving dinner when you don't
have the turkey? How many people want to take the ``to'' out of
``fu''? When you have tofu, and you take out the ``to,'' all
you're left with is ``fu.'' Period.
[Laughter.]
The Big Day is a 28-mile hike through Big Indian-Blitzen
gorges, and then running back to camp via the loop road.
Wilderness Watch wants to relocate us. That isn't a historic
use. We've ran--We've been in that mountain for 26 plus years.
We've been all over mountain, historically. I'm shorter, now.
``Atmosphere'': Why people eat, or don't eat, at
restaurants. Why would you want to come here and get close to
where wilderness is, and not be able to access it. Definition
of ``ONDA'': Oregon Natural Desert Association, who supports
the running camp activities in wilderness area. According to
Bill Marlett, on several occasions, ``A deal is a deal.'' It's
a deal. Oregon Congressional Delegation supports kids and camp
in the wilderness. Earl Blumenaur and Ron Wyden have written
letters in support of that.
In conclusion--as I see my light coming down close--The
rights of our camp were purposely and intentionally written
into that important legislation. Therefore, in respect to the
groups--environmental, rancher, everybody who was involved in
the original legislation--We hope that no litigation or court
injunction is filed by groups, such as Wilderness Watch, that
would prevent what legislators and stakeholders intended for
the Steens Act of 2000. If there is litigation or an injunction
filed that prevents our camp from using historic routes through
wilderness, we would ask you--the Congressional Delegation--for
clarification of the Act, that may have legislation, or promote
legislation, to protect us.
In summary, our camp was born out of a simple desire to
allow young men and women to be inspired by the beauty and
lessons of nature. Since our earnest and humble beginning, 27
years ago, we have always embraced the environment and
respected the land. We hope that we can continue this proud
tradition in the future. It would be a bittersweet and ironic
ending, if the very purpose of the special running camp is also
the very reason for its demise.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Harland.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yriarte follows:]
Statement of Harland Yriarte, Director, Steens Mountain Running Camp
Honorable Chairman Radanovich and members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands on the subject of the
Steens Mountain Running Camp. As the founder and director of this 27-
year old camp, I am very appreciative to be able to speak about the
origins and history of this camp, its purpose, the impacts that it has
on young people's lives and the environment, and the current
legislative and administrative issues it is dealing with.
BACKGROUND ON HISTORY OF STEENS MOUNTAIN RUNNING CAMP
I chose Steens Mountain as a backdrop for a running camp for high
school boys and girls because I grew up on this mountain, and I
realized the tremendous potential for drawing strength and beauty from
this pristine place. My grandparents were Basque immigrants that came
from Spain in the 1920's to herd sheep for the Laxalt family in Carson
City, Nevada. Within a few years of their arrival in the United States,
they moved to Crane, Oregon, and then Steens Mountain in the 1930's in
order to herd sheep in the Kiger, Blitzen, and Little and Big Indian
Gorges, as well as the Fish Lake Creek of Steens Mountain. I grew up on
a ranch 42 miles from Burns, Oregon, and I spent many of my summers on
Steens Mountain exploring the landscape, helping my family with work,
and gaining a deep sense of appreciation for this special place. After
graduating from Burns High School in 1966, I received a Bachelor of
Science Degree from Southern Oregon College in 1972, and then earned a
Masters of Education from University of Oregon in 1982. From 1972-1980
I became a teacher and cross country coach at Brookings Harbor High
School. During this time, in 1975, I decided to bring my fledgling
cross country team of 14 young boys and girls to camp in Steens
Mountain for a week. At the time, I had no thoughts or intentions of
starting a yearly ``camp.'' Simply, my purpose for bringing kids to
Steens Mountain was to allow them to internalize the beauty and the
simple, yet powerful lessons that exist in nature so that they could
become better runners, students, employees, sons and daughters, and
citizens. I believe that spending time in rugged and beautiful places
does several things: that it brings people closer together, it teaches
people to adapt, and it teaches life's truths. That year, after
returning from the mountain, our team won the state cross country
championship. Six state trophies and five Steens camping trips later,
The Oregon State Athletic Association decided that our team had an
``unfair advantage'' by going to Steens each summer. The state said
that either I had to cease bringing my Brookings Harbor high school
kids to Steens, or open it up for kids from other high schools to
attend. I decided to open it up for other kids to attend, and thus
Steens Mountain Running Camp was born.
CAMP PARTICIPANTS
Steens Mountain Running Camp usually holds two weeklong sessions in
late July through early August. Participants are primarily high school
athletes, college-age counselors, coaches, and adults. The camp staff
represents a variety of people with different backgrounds and skills
from across the country, and has included teachers, coaches, physical
trainers, bus drivers, cooks, political researchers, pilots, college
students, elite athletes, doctors, environmentalists, biologists, and
even interested parents. Past high school participants have come from
30 different U.S. states, as well as from abroad. Enrollment has grown
over the years and is now limited to 150 kids each session.
PURPOSE OF CAMP
Some of the major objectives of the camp is to allow adolescents to
enjoy, engage, and respect wilderness beauty through running, hiking,
exploring, and education. Our greatest goal is for high school boys and
girls to learn an appreciation for themselves, the environment, and
others--allow them to internalize this appreciation and beauty--and
then bring it home to share with their parents, teachers, friends,
neighbors, peers, and co-workers.
One thing that Steens Mountain has taught me is that people are
chameleons: you become what you surround yourself with. If you want to
be a good person, you surround yourself with good people. If you want
to espouse good values and internal beauty and strength, you surround
yourself with an externally beautiful and rugged world. I believe this
is one reason the camp has been so effective in inspiring young adults
to not only excel in running, but in academic, personal, spiritual, and
career goals as well--because they have opportunities to take in the
immense beauty that characterizes the Steens wilderness. I tell my camp
participants that they don't have to pick a beautiful flower to
internalize it's beauty'they can take that experience with them in
their hearts and minds, yet they leave the flower on the mountain for
others to enjoy. I encourage kids to emulate the qualities of plants
and animals we find in nature: the beauty of a flower, the adaptation
of a juniper tree to wind and hail storms, or the speed and grace of an
antelope.
The Steens Mountain Running Camp is not a typical sports camp that
only emphasizes athletic training or competition. On the contrary, more
than anything, this camp is about being a good person and reaching your
full potential as a human being. It's not just about becoming an
endurance athlete, or how to run fast, or how to be competitive, it's
about respecting the natural world we live in and the people around us,
having self-confidence, determination, courage, and integrity. It's
about being responsible, and maintaining self-discipline and character
despite adversity or hardship. The philosophy of the camp is that if
your heart is in the right place, and your mind and spirit are focused
and balanced, then everything else, including being a good athlete and
a good steward of the earth, will fall into place. Learning to be a
good runner is secondary at this camp, learning to be a good person is
primary.
Over the years, many things have changed with the running camp,
such as the size, location, and activities of the camp, but some things
have always remained constant.
We have always strived to teach young kids about how to respect and
appreciate the outdoors and nature. We teach kids to ``leave no
trace,'' ``respect wildlife and other wilderness visitors,'' and
``enjoy, but do not disturb anything.'' We do our utmost to embrace the
tenets of environmental stewardship.
We have maintained an excellent relationship with the BLM, visitors
to Steens Mountain, and local communities. To my knowledge, the BLM has
never received a formal complaint against our camp during our 26 years
of operation.
We ensure that campers' safety remains paramount at all times.
We allow kids to take in the beauty of Steens Mountain, internalize
this beauty, and take it home to share with their families, friends,
schools, jobs, and society.
CAMP ACTIVITIES
Most activities of the running camp are conducted on private land
that the camp owns on Steens Mountain. Activities on public lands,
including the Steens Mountain Wilderness, account for less than 25% of
the entire time spent at the camp. No competitive activities or
endurance events take place in the Steens Mountain Wilderness.
The cornerstone of the camp experience is the ``Big Day'', an all-
day hike/run through the Big Indian and Little Blitzen canyons, which
are now part of the Steens Mountain wilderness. The Big Day is
conducted twice each year, for 8-10 hours each time. The entire route
of the Big Day follows pre-existing trails and dirt roads within and
outside of the wilderness. This is the only camp activity conducted
within Steens wilderness.
Other activities on public land during the course of the week
include hikes, sightseeing, and runs. For example, as part of an
initial orientation, kids are taken to the top of Kiger Gorge and
Wildhorse Canyon, where they are educated about the ecology, biology,
geology, history, and geography of Steens Mountain.
WHAT CAMP PARTICIPANTS GAIN FROM THEIR EXPERIENCE
High school campers, college counselors, and adults consistently
express a great appreciation for the lessons they have learned at the
camp. Through words and letters, former campers most often say that
they have learned lessons about appreciating the beauty of nature, or
the value of adopting inner strength, compassion, and respect for
others and the world we live in. Here is what one camper, a 16 year-old
girl from Eugene, told me in a thank you letter:
``Dear Harland, I just wanted to say thank you for giving me the
opportunity to come to such an extraordinary camp like Steens. This
last week was my second time at the camp, and I'm just now beginning to
realize what a truly valuable experience I have been given. Being in
the awe-inspiring wilderness with all those amazing coaches and
educated individuals, has helped me not only realize what it is that I
love about running, and made me a better athlete, but has taught me the
value of teamwork and love. The gifts I have received from the Steens
Mountain and your camp will stay in my heart and thoughts forever, and
I hope to one day be able to live up to your standards of compassion,
determination, and excellence. Thank you so very much.''
Another camper, also a 16 year-old girl from Oregon, kept a journal
while at Steens camp:
``A Steens' night is clear and black. A black that you could stick
your hand into and it would be immediately swallowed; stuck in the
depths of another dimension. It was that kind of black. Yet the air was
luminous, lit strangely, possibly by the infinite number of stars which
were so visible in nights like these; unmasked by the neon of cities.
They sat like silver fleck of pepper on a deep black dinner mat. The
air was so still it seemed that if I lifted my chin and exerted one
forceful breath, all the stars would be sent scattering toward one
corner of the universe.''
In a letter of support, she also said, ``No other experience, world
traveling, community service, or otherwise has impacted me to the
extent that Steens has. Steens has made me a more considerate,
inspired, driven, confident, responsible, and environmentally aware
person. It is not a stretch to say that Steens campers, in five short
days, become better people.''
THE FORMATION OF THE STEENS ACT OF 2000
For the past 27 years, Steens Mountain Running Camp has been the
informal steward of the Steens Mountain area. We realized the special
qualities and unique beauty of this mountain long ago, and have taught
kids to respect and take care of this natural asset. Spanning almost
three decades, our camp has drawn consistent praise from local
communities, environmentalists, ecologists, high school athletes and
their coaches, and magazines and newspapers. Since our humble beginning
in 1975, our camp has been ranked as one of the ``top 10 running
camps'' in the nation by Runners World magazine, and newspapers such as
the Eugene Register Guard and Burns Times-Herald have written articles,
aptly named ``Runner's High: Surviving the Steens Mountain Running Camp
is a Triumph of the Mind,'' and ``Steens Mountain Running Camp Strives
for Inner Strength and Character.''
In 2000, due to growing public awareness of a secret hidden gem
tucked away in the remote Southeast corner of Oregon, people decided
they wanted to formally protect the Steens Mountain. Even though, as a
group, we didn't need for laws to pass to ensure that we would continue
to do the right things and be stewards of the mountain, we strongly
supported environmental efforts aimed at protecting this magnificent
wilderness area. We were glad to see that measures were being taken to
guarantee that this enduring source of wilderness would remain
unspoiled for future generations.
Accordingly, we participated in the legislative process to ensure
that laws were passed to protect Steens Mountain and our running camp.
We wrote letters, collected information, worked with legislators, and
provided public testimony about the mountain and running camp. As a
result of our outstanding track record and relationship with the BLM,
public, and environmental groups, we received overwhelming support for
the camp from a variety of groups, individuals, and legislators.
Indeed, we were given reasonable assurance from the framers of the
Steens Act that that the running camp would not have to change it's
historic use of the mountain at all (including routes used for the Big
Day). In fact, the Steens Act was a ground-breaking piece of
legislation, unlike any other wilderness acts previously passed in the
United States. During the bargaining phase (in which environmental
groups participated), certain concessions were made in exchange for
certain allowances. The most notable concession made was that Steens
would be made the first-ever cow-free wilderness in the nation, and
among the allowances made in exchange was protection granted for the
historic use of the Steens Mountain Running Camp. Thus, we were led to
believe that our camp was protected in the future. In furtherance of
this understanding, legislators wrote our camp letters of reassurance.
For example, Senator Wyden sent us a letter on December 21, 2000
stating the following:
``As I understand, the running camp uses routes both inside and
outside of the newly created wilderness area. The running camp provides
a unique experience for young athletes, and I strongly support it. In
our discussions over the legislation, I wanted to accommodate the needs
of the running camp and therefore negotiated the bill to ensure the
camp would run in the same manner it has for several years. The bill
specifically protects those `outfitters'--in this context the camp is
an `outfitter'--who have historically operated on the mountain. I
intend to watch closely as the new law takes effect, and stand ready to
assist the camp should any difficulties arise.''
Likewise, we received a similar letter from Congressman Blumenauer,
dated September 22, 2000:
``Let me assure you that there is nothing in my legislation, the
Steens Mountain Wilderness Act of 2000, which would negatively impact
your camp. No one has ever asked us to include any provisions in the
bill that would threaten its continued existence.''
Furthermore, we received support from environmental groups
intimately familiar with the Steens Mountain area, such as the Oregon
Natural Desert Association (ONDA) and the Steens-Alvord Coalition. For
example, an August 24, 2000 e-mail sent to Oregon legislators by Jill
Workman, Chair of the Steens-Alvord Coalition, stated that:
``I understand that you have received inquiries from your
colleagues regarding the Steens Mountain Legislation's impact on the
running camp that takes place on Steens Mountain each summer. As chair
of the Steens-Alvord Coalition, I am writing to let you know that the
coalition views the running camp as relatively benign. We do not take
issue with its continued existence nor do we intend to attempt to
incorporate into the legislation any language that would limit or force
the running camp to change its operation...Last year the Southeast
Oregon RAC [Resource Advisory Council] received numerous letters from
campers asking us (I represent environmental interests on the RAC) to
not close the camp, to keep the Steens Mountain Road open and to
continue to allow people to recreate on the mountain--we had not
considered closing the camp, the Steens Mountain Road or the mountain
to recreation use...As you may know, this running camp houses its
campers in tents on private land and the campers spend the majority of
their days running through the gorges of Steens Mountain, much of which
is public land. I doubt that most visitors to the mountain realize that
the camp is there. The camp has a special use permit from BLM and we
have not purposed any changes to that permit...I am hopeful that
addressing this matter now will keep the running camp from becoming an
issue as we attempt to move forward with consensus legislation.''
In a more recent newspaper article, ``Watchdog Group Battles Steens
Camp for Runners,'' (The Register Guard, Eugene, Oregon, May 6, 2002)
Bill Marlett, executive director of the ONDA, shed some light on their
organization's stance regarding the Big Day event:
``From the get-go, we felt it was a relatively benign activity
compared to a lot of things that were happening in wilderness,
especially livestock grazing. The expectation was that when the Steens
was designated, the camp would continue its operation in the
wilderness.''
Due to these numerous reassurances that our camp would not have to
change our historic use of the mountain, we did not worry that our
camp's future would be threatened. Had we known at the time that our
camp's status would be challenged, we would have gone to great lengths
to fight for the camp's rights and ensure that legislation provided
further provisions to protect our camp.
LATE-EMERGING CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT THE CAMP
In the Fall of 2001, the first indication surfaced that a group
opposed our camp's historic use of the Steens Mountain area. As a
member of the newly formed Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC), I
received a newsletter from Wilderness Watch along with the eleven other
council members at the very first SMAC meeting. The newsletter stated:
``Wilderness solitude needs protection: This past summer the BLM
allowed a commercial running camp to take its clients through the
wilderness in a single group of 150 runners. Other wilderness visitors
were dismayed to see hordes of runners suddenly streaming down over
canyon ledges and racing past their camps. Nothing in the Steens Mtn
legislation allows the continuation of commercial activities that are
inconsistent with wilderness values such as protection of solitude. The
running camp owner, Harlan [sic] Yriarte, represents private property
interests on the SMAC.''
I was troubled to read this information about our camp, which I
believed portrayed our camp in an inaccurate and negative way. Since
this newsletter appeared in 2001, the controversy over our camp has
become more contentious, as a handful of individuals and groups seem
unwaveringly opposed to our camp's use of the wilderness. Primarily,
issues of solitude, group size, compatibility with the Wilderness Act
of 1964, and fear of setting a precedent seem to be their foremost
concerns. As they have stated, their goal is to remove our camp from
the Steens wilderness areas, and have us do the Big Day on an
alternative route outside of the wilderness. To achieve this goal, they
are asking the BLM to refrain from issuing the Special Recreation
Permit (SRP) that would allow our camp to conduct the Big Day within
wilderness areas. I commend the good intentions and efforts of groups
like Wilderness Watch to protect the Steens area. I, too, wish to
protect this natural asset. However, I believe that their good
intentions are based on a lack of a thorough and accurate understanding
of the running camp and the intentions of the Steens Act of 2000. Their
desire to re-route the Big Day will also undermine the safety of the
young runners, which I will explain more in a moment.
I think it's also important to point out to the Subcommittee that
although there are a handful of people who oppose our camp (many of
whom reside out of state and have never even been to Steens Mountain),
our camp has had tremendous outreach and support from the community,
former campers, and environmental, conservation, and wilderness
advocates. Biologists, ecologists, botanists, archeologists, and
members of groups such as the Sierra Club, League of Conservation
Voters, and the Eugene Natural History Society are among the many
groups and individuals that have written letters of support to our
camp. For example, Peter Helzer, a member of the board of directors for
the Eugene Natural History Society, wrote the following in a May 20,
2002 letter addressed to the BLM:
``We feel that the environmental impact of the Steens camp has been
negligible while its educational value (and its public relations value
to the environmental movement) has been substantial. Our concern is
that if the Steens Mountain Running Camp is forced to change its
format, including alterations to the ``Big Day Run,'' the camp
experience will be diminished, and local environmental groups like the
Natural History Society...will lose a unique opportunity to work with a
large group of energetic young adults. There are good reasons why
environmental groups'that are active within the state of Oregon'support
the Steens Mountain Running Camp.''
Similar sentiment was expressed in an e-mail sent to me on May 18,
2002, from a member of the Sierra Student Coalition:
``Mr. Yriarte, I work with the Sierra Student Coalition, the
student arm of the Sierra Club, on National Forest issues. I just
wanted to let you know that I am totally with you on the Steens
Wilderness issue. I think the philosophy that you articulated in the
paper recently is exactly what young people need--and Nickas should
recognize that. I hope that you won't let his narrow view create
negative impressions of the environmental community for either the
young athletes or yourself. He ``does not'' represent the majority of
us.''
Yet more evidence of support came from Andrea Callahan, founder of
the ``Kids Saving Earth Club'' in a 4J public school, and member of the
League of Conservation Voters. In a letter to the editor published in
the Register Guard on May 20, 2002, she said:
``I attended the camp in 1999 as a 55-year-old mother, and although
I'm not a runner, I went on the ``Big Day'' through what is now
wilderness area, taking in beautiful canyons, waterfalls and aspen
trees (campers go into this wilderness area only two days out of the
year). I saw the minimal impact the camp had on the land, the
wilderness education it provided to kids and the inspiration it
fostered to respect the earth and all living things. I was inspired.
Kids today need all the help they can get on their way to becoming
responsible, respectful adults. Steens camp was a turning point in my
own son's life. Through inspirational and educational talks during
camp, he developed a strong sense of self and a love for the earth. How
many kids have an opportunity to learn first hand how to be stewards of
our precious earth? It's this very kind of camp that will motivate kids
to become environmentalists, and I can think of no better environmental
cause to support.''
HOW THE CAMP HAS ADDRESSED CONCERNS
Although we feel that the Steens Mountain Act protects our historic
use of the mountain, we also feel that our camp does embrace the values
and intent of both the Steens Act of 2000 and the Wilderness Act of
1964.
Compliance with the Wilderness Act of 1964
The Wilderness Act of 1964 was written to create ``an enduring
resource of wilderness--where man is a visitor who does not remain.''
The Wilderness Act also states in Sec. 4. (b) that, ``wilderness areas
shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic,
scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.'' In these
ways, our camp maintains the quintessential spirit and intention of the
Wilderness Act of 1964. First, nothing that our camp does harms the
mountain, or prevents the wilderness from continuing to be wilderness.
This has been confirmed by years of monitoring by the BLM and
environmental specialists. In fact, a biology and ecology teacher who
attended the camp commended the camp's efforts to ``encourage and
maintain high standards to take care of the environment at all times.''
Second, we allow a group of talented, curious high schoolers a rare
opportunity to directly experience wilderness and learn from the
mountain. In fact, kids from over 30 different states and even other
countries have attended this camp, ranging from places like inner-city
Chicago to Mississippi and even Portugal. The experience these kids
take away from camp is one that cannot be duplicated at home, and it
will last them a lifetime. On all levels and at all times, we respect
the mountain, we leave no trace, and we respect and allow other people
to enjoy the mountain as well. We are not asking to operate jet skis on
the Blitzen River, and we're not the National Guard asking to conduct
military exercises. We are a group of high school adolescents who will
be traveling into the wilderness by foot. We conduct the camp for only
two weeks out of every year on private land, we are only in the
designated wilderness area for 8-10 hours two to three times a year. We
spend the majority of our time on private land.
The Steens Mountain Running Camp fulfills the Wilderness Act
provisions of ``recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,
conservation, and historical use'' in several ways: The camp conducts
recreational activities (swimming, hiking, exploring, sightseeing), it
allows kids to take in the amazing scenery that exists within the
wilderness areas, it educates participants about biology, ecology, and
geology, it encourages and practices conservation, and it has a proud
history that dates back to 1975. On several occasions during camp,
campers were even given demonstrations of primitive archeology and
living skills, and were given the opportunity to learn the ancient
skills of making fires by friction and flint knapping (making
arrowheads out of obsidian). Native American dancing demonstrations
have also been performed at camp, and this summer a guest speaker who
holds a PhD in archeology and paleobotany is going to give a
presentation about the archeology and botany of Steens Mountain. In
furtherance of educational objectives, campers even have the
opportunity to receive college credit from their camp experience
through Southern Oregon University.
Furthermore, the Wilderness Act states that wilderness areas
``shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and
enjoyment as wilderness...'' We cause no damage to the mountain that
would impair its ``future use and enjoyment as wilderness.''
Furthermore, who better qualifies to use and enjoy Steens wilderness
than the youth, and future leaders, of our country? Indeed, some
campers have even been inspired to devote their lives to conservation
causes, and are currently pursuing life goals of working for
environmental groups.
However, even if there are concerns that our camp does not fall in
harmony with the Wilderness Act of 1964, the intent of Steens
legislation was to allow us to continue using the wilderness area.
Compliance with the Steens Act of 2000
The purpose of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act of 2000 (SMCMPA) included maintaining the ``cultural,
economic, ecological, and social health of the Steens Mountain area in
Harney County, Oregon.'' (Sec. 1 (b) (1)). It is recognized that the
Steens Mountain Running Camp has been a legitimate and historic part of
the Steens Mountain, and has also maintained an enduring economic
function in the local area (spending more than $20,000 in Harney County
last year alone). As such, the camp falls under the cultural, economic,
and social health provisions as granted by the SMCMPA.
Furthermore, the objective of the SMCMPA is ``to promote grazing,
recreation, historic, and other uses that are sustainable.'' The camp
is consistent with the ``recreation'' and ``historic'' objectives of
the SMCMPA (sec. 102 (b) (2)).
Additionally, the SMCMPA states that ``the Secretary [of the
Interior] shall manage all Federal lands included in the Cooperative
Management and Protection Area...in a manner that (2) recognizes and
allows current and historic recreational use.'' (Sec. 111 (a) (2)). As
the camp has been operating on Steens Mountain since 1975, it, too,
fulfills these functions of the Steens Act.
Concerns about Impact to Wilderness
Some concerns have been raised that we disturb the solitude of the
wilderness when we conduct the Big Day and Cross Canyon events,
possibly creating a ``negative social impact for other wilderness
visitors.'' However, feelings of solitude are dependent upon
encountering people. As such, our camp rarely encounters people during
the Big Day. In 2001, we encountered a total of three people during the
Big Day events. Part of the reason for this is because the Steens
wilderness encompasses such a large area: 170,000 acres. During the Big
Day, 150 high school kids traverse a very small, geographically masked
area of this enormous mountain wilderness. To put it in perspective, if
each camp participant were equally spread across the Steens Wilderness,
each would occupy an area larger than 1100 acres. This equates to fewer
than one person per an area of land larger than New York City's Central
Park. In the rare times that we have encountered other people, the
encounter usually consists of smiles, encouragement, and a friendly
wave good bye. Additionally, campers are instructed to talk quietly
while in the wilderness and treat other wilderness visitors with
courtesy and respect. A large part of the route also follows the
Blitzen and Big Indian rivers, which help mask the sounds of our group.
Furthermore, opportunities for solitude are enhanced by the varied and
rugged topography. Topographic and vegetative screening, especially
around the creek and canyon bottoms, often hide our presence from other
visitors. Frequently, someone who is not more than a , mile away from
our group will often not know that we are there. Perhaps the greatest
testament to our minimal impact to solitude is the fact that the BLM
has never received a formal complaint during our 26 years of conducting
these activities. Additionally, if we have perceived any potential
problems in the past, we have either policed ourselves to fix the
problem or willingly worked with the BLM to mitigate any impacts to the
mountain.
However, if wilderness advocate groups are truly concerned about
mitigating any impact to solitude or sign of human presence in the
Steens wilderness, then maybe they should consider the following:
Hunting, even commercially for-profit guided hunting groups, are
allowed in Steens and other wilderness areas. Is the sound and sight of
rifle fire less disturbing to wilderness values than kids hiking
through a canyon?
Cars and RV's can be seen from many points within Steens wilderness
area--as 50,000 visitors come to Steens Mountain each year and drive
down the South Loop. Do automobile backdrops provide a ``truer
wilderness'' to visitors than high school boys and girls at a creek
side?
My point is not to single out hunting or driving access on Steens,
or to pass judgment on other wilderness activities, but rather to
highlight that some oppositional efforts against our camp seem
disproportionate and misguided. If solitude is really what they're
concerned about, shouldn't they be going after the 165 decibel roar of
rifle fire, rather than the 65 decibel sound of shuffling feet muffled
by the sound of running water? Shouldn't they be going after the
constant glinting glass and shiny metal of a roaming RV seen from
within wilderness, rather than the occasional and benign sight of kids
hiking on a trail?
Some wilderness advocates such as Wilderness Watch want our camp to
consider using alternative routes outside of the wilderness area to
conduct the Big Day event. While these alternative plans may seem to
make sense on the surface, in practice they would create problems.
We've designed the Big Day to fulfill two main goals: to provide
outstanding scenic beauty and safety. Any alternative plan outside of
the wilderness compromises both of these issues.
First, Steens Mountain is somewhat like the Grand Canyon'the
outstanding scenery and beauty exists when you have an opportunity to
take in views at the edge or from within the enormous canyons. At the
Grand Canyon, if you are only allowed within , mile of the rim, it is a
vastly less inspiring and breathtaking experience than being at the rim
or inside the canyon. Likewise, at Steens Mountain, the most impressive
beauty and splendor lies at the edge or within the enormous canyons.
All of these canyons are within the newly designated wilderness area,
as they should be, because that is where the outstanding beauty and
scenery of Steens Mountain exist. The areas outside of the wilderness
areas consist of rather monotonous, flat, arid land dominated primarily
by sagebrush, junipers, and some aspen trees. The areas are devoid of
the rich diversity and scenery found in the canyons, such as
waterfalls, grassy meadows, and fragrant wild mint and lavender. Being
forced to hike on a dirt road outside of the wilderness area totally
eliminates the original purpose of the Big Day and the camp.
Second, the primary consideration in planning the Big Day is
safety. This includes factors such as planning for bad weather, having
aid/first aid stations along the route, operating in areas that allow
transmission of two way radio communications and cell phone reception,
and attending to water and hydration needs. The proposed alternative
routes may not be able to accommodate all of these safety factors.
One of the greatest risks to camper safety is lightning strikes.
Due to the elevation, topography, and weather patterns around Steens
mountain, adverse weather conditions, including thunderstorms, high
winds, and hail frequently develop with little or no warning. The
large, flat expansive areas outside of the wilderness areas provide
less protection and shelter from the thunderstorms that are typical
during the summer afternoons. In 1975, the bus driver for the camp was
killed by a lighting strike that occurred on the expansive, flat top of
Big Indian Gorge, where there is less terrain variation to afford
protection from strikes. As a result, to help mitigate potential
lightning strike hazards, the camp plans the Big Day so that campers
are within the 2000'' deep Blitzen Gorge during the afternoon.
Generally, lightning will strike canyon walls, varied terrain, or other
high points like trees more frequently than surrounding flat terrain.
To further mitigate safety hazards, participants are given a thorough
briefing on how to avoid lighting strikes during thunderstorms. When
encountered, camp staff direct the participants to stop hiking or
running, and to assume a position on lower terrain that minimizes the
potential of attracting lighting.
Forcing the camp to adopt alternative plans may have other
drawbacks. For example, since the Wilderness area is at higher
elevation, conducting this event outside of the Wilderness area may
likely force us into the juniper/sage brush lowlands, where
temperatures are considerably hotter during the day. This increases the
risk of kids experiencing heat-related problems such as dehydration or
heat stroke. It can also lead to greater risk of hypothermia if the
temperature drops.
Concerns have also been raised about the size of our group, as
claims have been made that no other for-profit group in the nation is
allowed to conduct an activity like our Big Day in wilderness areas. In
fact, this is flat-out wrong. For example, a for-profit commercial
enterprise that is allowed to bring a group through wilderness is the
20-plus year old Western States 100 Endurance Race--where the Forest
Service allows 369 runners and 1300 volunteers to go through the
Granite Chief Wilderness Area each year. Forrest Service monitoring has
revealed that this group of runners (larger than our camp) has ``no
impact'' to the trail. In another example, the Tevist Cup horse race
with 250 rider/horse teams and 700 volunteers is allowed to go through
the same wilderness area.
Another stated concern is that by allowing our camp into the
wilderness, a dangerous precedent of ``accommodating groups in
wilderness areas'' will be established. However, no precedent will ever
be set, as no other group could possibly fit the stringent criteria
that allows us to operate in the wilderness, namely, 27 years of
historic use. No matter who asks, or for what reasons, or by what
means, any other group asking to do the same thing as Steens Mountain
Running Camp will be flatly denied permission, and justifiably so,
since they do not fall under the protection of the Steens Act of 2000.
THE CAMP'S CURRENT SITUATION
In the spirit of cooperation, our camp is willingly going through
an administrative process to ensure our right to use the Steens
Wilderness. The Burns BLM is currently drafting an Environmental
Assessment to measure the impacts of our camp on wilderness. If
approved, we will receive a Special Recreation Permit as we have since
the early-1980's to conduct our camp this summer.
CONCLUSION
The Steens Act was put together by a cross section of society:
bipartisan politicians, environmentalists, ranchers, wilderness
advocates, land owners, private citizens, and Native Americans.
Essentially, a patchwork quilt of people contributed to make this Act
possible because they wanted to see the bright future of Steens
Mountain passed on to future generations. The rights of our camp were
purposefully and intentionally written into that important legislation.
Therefore, in respect of the groups who were a part of the Steens
legislation, we hope that no litigation or court injunction is filed by
groups such as Wilderness Watch that would prevent what legislators and
stake holders intended for the Steens Act of 2000. If there is
litigation or an injunction filed that prevents our camp from using our
historic routes through wilderness, we would ask for a congressional
clarification to the Steens Act that would protect our camp in the
future. Additionally, we are concerned about how many other unforeseen
controversies we may have to deal with in the future. How do we ensure
that our camp will not have to go through another controversy and
administrative process in another four or five years? Already, dealing
with this unforeseen controversy this year has required a great deal of
time, attention, and effort. It is also having a negative financial
impact on the camp, as enrollment is down 25% as compared to previous
years.
I am worried about the future of this camp, even this summer.
Although the BLM has not ever received a single formal complaint in the
past 27 years about any issues such as soil compaction, trail erosion,
or disturbance to solitude, I must be honest and say that I'm worried
that this year there will be many complaints made by ``planted
complainers,'' who will coincidentally appear on the day, time, and
place of our Big Day event.
We hope that we can avoid a further controversy surrounding our
camp. We ourselves would like to return to the ``solitude'' that we
once knew on the Steens Mountain.
In summary, our camp was born out of a simple desire to allow young
men and women to be inspired by the beauty and lessons of nature. Since
our earnest and humble beginning 27 years ago, we have always embraced
the environment and respected the land. We hope that we can continue
this proud tradition in the future. It would be a bittersweet and
ironic ending if the very purpose of this special running camp is also
the very reason for its demise.
______
[Attachments to Mr. Yriarte's statement follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Walden. Bill? Welcome, and thank you for joining us
today. We very much appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF BILL MARLETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OREGON NATURAL
DESERT ASSOCIATION
Mr. Marlett. Thank you. It's great to be here
Representatives Walden and Mike Simpson. Good to see you again.
Appreciate the opportunity to speak on implementation of the
Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of
2000. The path chosen for Steens was a novel course of action,
one that attempts to balance competing interests; accommodate
diverse stakeholders; and provide for direct citizen
involvement; with a goal to serve, protect, and manage the
long-term ecological integrity of Steens Mountain for future
and present generations. While the overreaching goal of the Act
is clear, the path in reaching our goal will be anything but
smooth.
Today, I want to focus on three issues, I believe, that are
impeding progress toward achieving that goal. The first is that
Oregon's Delegation should not try to fix every problem--
perceived or otherwise--that manifests, as we go through this
arduous planning process. By way of example, when we agreed to
the nation's first cow-free wilderness area on Steens Mountain,
we did not fully appreciate, nor did the bill acknowledge, that
it would take several years to achieve cow-free status in the
newly formed wilderness area. And, while we could have raised a
political fuss, we didn't. We decided, in the spirit of
cooperation, we would let the process run its course. My point
in raising this is to illustrate that whether the issue is
access to private lands or ongoing livestock management, people
need to exercise patience.
Representatives Walden and Simpson, I know that you and the
rest of the Oregon Delegation did not intend that the Steens
Act would solve all the problems on Steens Mountain, which is
why you established the Steens Mountain Advisory Committee to
assist BLM in preparing a detailed management plan that
addressed the myriad issues.
The second issue relates directly the SMAC. Congress gave
very explicit directions to BLM, to prepare a management plan
with help of the SMAC. I believe the Committee is spending too
much time--too much of its precious time--on issues secondary
to completing the plan. I believe that in the short time left,
the SMAC must focus its limited energy in completing the plan,
and only when necessary, and as time permits, delve into the
interim issues the BLM is having to contend with daily.
The third issue--and, in my opinion, the biggest
disappointment of the Steens Act--is the total absence of
promised funding for land and easement acquisition and juniper
management. Just within the Steens Mountain wilderness, there
are nearly 5000 acre of private inholdings that pose a threat
to BLM's ability to manage the area as wilderness. Some of
these landowners have expressed a willingness to sell their
lands to BLM, but there's no money. I, along with the Steens-
Alvord Coalition, firmly agree with Governor Kitzhaber, that
potential development of private lands is a primary threat to
the undeveloped integrity of the Steens Mountain landscape that
people value so highly.
All stakeholders who were party to drafting the Steens
legislation agreed that acquiring land and easements from
willing sellers would be part of the long-term strategy to
achieve the goal of the Steens Act. Oregon's Delegation agreed,
and Congress authorized, $25 million for land acquisition, and
$5 million for juniper management. To date, no funds have been
appropriated for these purposes. Representative Walden, the
integrity of the process created by the Steens Act, and our
ability in achieving the goal of the Act, hinge in large part
to honoring this promise you and the rest of the Oregon
delegation made to all Oregonians 2 years ago. Your commitment
to ongoing funding was as much a part of the consensus
agreement we made as the land exchanges, making ranch
operations whole, and designating wilderness. For myself and
many others, this promise of future funding for land and
easements acquisition and juniper management was the carrot
that convinced us to support national legislation over a
monument proclamation, which, as you know, carries no of
commitment Federal dollars.
This is not to suggest there is no active role for Oregon's
Delegation outside the appropriations process. First, Steens
Act did not designate approximately 100,000 acres of WSA land
within the management boundaries as wilderness. For political
reasons, these wilderness designations were left on the table
for another day, and it is our understanding Congress will
revisit this issue when appropriate.
Second, Congress may wish to legislate additional land
exchanges, as currently being proposed for George Stroemple and
others, to consolidate public and private lands, secure new
wilderness, or eliminating inholdings. ONDA strongly supports
the current batch of land exchanges, and encourages you to pass
legislation this year securing these lands. As you know, during
the course of the original discussions on the Steens Act,
several important land exchanges, including a Scharff and
Hammond exchanges, were dropped for lack of time to reach
consensus. To the extent any land exchange meets the objectives
of the Act, in particular when Congress is creating new
wilderness, Congress should act immediately to secure these
lands. Of course, we will be vigilant to balance any
legislative exchange, to ensure that the public's interest is
protected.
Last, Congress should deal with any mistakes we made 2
years ago, and you should rightly make the boundary
assessments, which were recently approved by the Steens
Mountain Advisory Committee.
But Congress should not prematurely involve itself in
management issues, in particular policy matters related to the
Wilderness Act, that have not been fully debated, much less
agreed too. The BLM has rules and regulations, along with a
public process, that should be given a chance to work.
In short, Representative Walden, Congress should not
attempt to fix problems with implementation of the Steens Act
that may be more perception than reality, or before the
management plan has been completed. Congressional fixes may be
necessary, but should be viewed as actions of last resort. Let
the SMAC and the BLM carry out their respective duties.
Legislative tinkering, at this juncture, only sends a message
that the Steens model is flawed. I believe it would be unwise
for us to send that message. If you want to help us keep moving
forward, let's complete the pending land exchanges and boundary
judgments, and appropriate at least some of the money we were
promised 18 months ago for juniper management and land and
easement acquisition.
Representative Walden, thank you again for your leadership,
time, and interest on this important issue. For the record, I'd
also like to thank BLM district manager Tom Dyer and Miles
Brown--area manager--along with the Burns district staff, who I
think are doing a great job in a very difficult task. Thank
you.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marlett follows:]
Statement of Bill Marlett, Executive Director, Oregon Natural Desert
Association
Representative Walden, thank you for the opportunity to speak on
implementation of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act of 2000.
The path chosen for Steens was a novel course of action, one that
attempts to balance competing interests, accommodate diverse
stakeholders, and provide for direct citizen involvement with the goal
to ``conserve, protect, and manage the long-term ecological integrity
of Steens Mountain for future and present generations.''
While the overarching goal of the Act is clear, the path in
reaching our goal will be anything but smooth.
Today, I want to focus on three issues I believe are impeding
progress towards achieving that goal:
The first is that Oregon's delegation should not try to fix every
problem, perceived or otherwise, that manifests as we go through this
arduous planning process. By way of example, when we agreed to the
nation's first ``cow-free'' wilderness area on Steens Mountain, we did
not fully appreciate, nor did the bill acknowledge, that it would take
several years to achieve cow-free status in the newly-formed wilderness
area. And while we could have raised a political fuss, we didn't. We
decided, in the spirit of cooperation, we would let the process run its
course.
My point in raising this is to illustrate that whether the issue is
access to private lands or on-going livestock management, people need
to exercise patience. Rep. Walden, I know that you and the rest of the
delegation did not intend that the Steens Act would solve all the
problems on Steens Mountain, which is why you established the Steens
Mountain Advisory Committee (SMAC), to assist BLM in preparing a
detailed management plan that addresses the myriad issues.
The second issue relates directly to the SMAC. Congress gave very
explicit direction to BLM to prepare a management plan with the help of
the SMAC. I believe the committee is spending too much of its precious
time on issues secondary to completing the plan. I believe with the
short time left, the SMAC must focus its limited energy in completing
the plan, and only when necessary, and as time permits, delve into the
interim issues BLM is having to contend with daily.
The third issue, and in my opinion, the biggest disappointment of
the Steens Act, is the total absence of promised funding for land and
easement acquisition, and juniper management. Just within the Steens
Mountain Wilderness, there are nearly 5,000 acres of private inholdings
that pose a threat to BLM's ability to manage the area as wilderness.
Some of these landowners have expressed a willingness to sell their
lands to BLM, but there is no money. I, along with the Steens-Alvord
Coalition, firmly agree with Governor Kitzhaber, that potential
development of private lands is a primary threat to the undeveloped
integrity of the Steens Mountain landscape that people value so highly.
All stakeholders who were party to drafting the Steens legislation
agreed that acquiring land and easements from willing sellers would be
part of the long-term strategy to achieve the goal of the Steens Act.
Oregon's delegation agreed and Congress authorized $25 million for land
acquisition and $5 million for juniper management. To date, no funds
have been appropriated for these purposes. Rep. Walden, the integrity
of the process created by the Steens Act, and our ability in achieving
the goal of the Act, hinge in large part on honoring this promise you
and the rest of the Oregon delegation made to all Oregonians two years
ago.
Your commitment to on-going funding was as much a part of the
consensus agreement we made as the land exchanges, making ranch
operations whole, and designating wilderness. For myself and many
others, this promise of future funding for land and easement
acquisition and juniper management was the carrot that convinced us to
support national legislation over a monument proclamation, which as you
know, carries no commitment of federal dollars.
This is not to suggest there is no active role for Oregon's
delegation outside the appropriations process:
1) First, the Steens Act did not designate approximately 100,000
acres of WSA lands within the management boundary as wilderness. For
political reasons, these wilderness designations were left on the table
for another day, and it is our understanding Congress will revisit this
issue when appropriate.
2) Second, Congress may wish to legislate additional land
exchanges, as currently being proposed for George Stroemple and others,
to consolidate public and private lands, secure new wilderness, or
eliminate in-holdings. ONDA strongly supports the current batch of land
exchanges and encourages you to pass legislation this year securing
these lands. As you know, during the course of the original discussions
on the Steens Act, several important land exchanges, including the
Scharff and Hammond exchanges, were dropped for lack of time to reach
consensus. To the extent any land exchange meets the objectives of the
Act, in particular where Congress is creating new wilderness, Congress
should act immediately to secure these lands. Of course, we will be
vigilant to balance any legislated exchange to ensure that the public's
interest is protected.
3) Lastly, Congress should deal with any mistakes we made two years
ago, and you should rightfully make the boundary corrections which were
recently approved by the SMAC.
But Congress should not prematurely involve itself in management
issues, in particular policy matters related to The Wilderness Act,
that have not been fully debated, much less agreed to. The BLM has
rules and regulations, along with a public process, that should be
given a chance to work.
In short, Rep. Walden, Congress should not attempt to fix problems
with implementation of the Steens Act that may be more perception than
reality, or before the management plan has been completed.
Congressional fixes may be necessary, but should be viewed as actions
of last resort. Let the SMAC and BLM carry out their respective duties.
Legislative tinkering at this juncture only sends the message that the
Steens model is flawed. I believe it would be unwise for us to send
that message.
If you want to help us keep moving forward, let's complete the
pending land exchanges and boundary adjustments, and appropriate at
least some of the money we were promised 18 months ago for juniper
management and land and easement acquisition.
Representative Walden, thank you again for your leadership, time
and interest on this important issue. For the record, I would also like
to thank BLM District Manager, Tom Dyer, Area Manager, Miles Brown,
along with Burns District BLM staff, who are doing a good job on a
difficult task.
______
Mr. Walden. Cindy?
STATEMENT OF CINDY WITZEL, RECREATIONAL PERMIT HOLDER,
FRENCHGLEN, OREGON
Ms. Witzel. Hi. Thank you for coming down here to see us
all. I'm Cindy Witzel. I'm co-owner, with my husband, John, of
Steens Mountain Packers. I'm on the Steens Mountain Advisory
Council, as a recreation permit representative. And I've been
guiding backcountry trips, river trips, et cetera, for about 21
years--teaching people how to use wilderness and rivers and
take care of those special places. And I'd like to start my
testimony by elaborating a little bit on some things that are
already in the congressional record, and in particular, the
extensions to the congressional record. And, in there, there's
a piece that talks about the commercial recreation permittees,
and I'd like to list out who they were at the time of the Act.
Those included Oregon Llamas, Broken Trails, Steens
Mountain Running Camp, High Desert Outfitters, Pro Hunting &
Fishing Consultants, Steens Mountain Packers, Spot Country
Outfitters, and Brett Jansen Guide Service. And I'm not sure,
out of the eight, which one has not renewed their permit at
this time. Of those eight historic users that were defined in
that legislation, their current and historic uses included
cross-country, high-altitude running training; big-game
hunting; bird hunting; fishing; multiple-day horse packing;
trail riding; multiple-day llama packing; backpacking; day
hiking; mountain biking; ATV touring; van and pickup tours;
snowmobiling; cross-country and backcountry skiing, with or
without motorized supports; snowshoeing; and snow-Cat touring.
And, by the way, those are not just the commercial uses, but
also the private-user uses.
I'd like to talk a little bit about those uses and the uses
that are consistent with the Wilderness Act. Walking, running,
hiking, riding--Those are all nonmotorized uses that are all
consistent with the Wilderness Act. Mountain biking, motor-
vehicle tours, ATV tours, helicopter landings--Those are uses
that are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. Under section
115, the Steens Mountain Running Camp's use, Steens Mountain
Packer's use, Oregon Llama's use--all of those uses are
consistent with wilderness and the Wilderness Act, and
certainly, Wilderness Act in the context of the Steens Mountain
Act.
I would like to take exception to the BLM's position on
their interpretation of ``reasonable access to private
inholdings.'' The Steens Mountain Act specifically says, under
Title II, the Wilderness Act portion, that ``reasonable access
to private inholdings will be authorized under Section 112 at
the CMPA, Title I.'' It does not say that reasonable access
will be authorized under the Wilderness Act--or, wilderness
regulations. And, I think, therein lies the crux of the
interpretation.
I, also, would suggest a solution to the impasse which
private landowners and the BLM are at, essentially, because we
all receive letters asking for--if we have any need for access,
to submit the request. They won't be receiving any requests for
access, because nobody's going to be putting down how many
times you're going to access your property. I would suggest
that the BLM, perhaps, do a programmatic EA on access to
private inholdings, if that's what they have to do. And
historic access has been that we access properties when we need
to, when--for whatever purpose we need, whatever time we need
to. And, if they need to conduct some sort of public process,
that would be it. I think it's completely unreasonable to
subject a private landowner to public litigation for access to
your private land, which is a right of that land.
I also believe that the Wilderness Act talks about
``adequate access.'' The Steens Mountain Act talks about
``reasonable access.'' They're not even similar terms. The
wilderness regulations talk about ``adequate access,'' and
``reasonable access'' does not appear anywhere. And I think
that we need to allow the Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Area to take on its own identity and
move forward in this cooperative and collaborative process, in
certainly a new way than what we have, as stipulated in those
things that are completely different than what we have here.
And, last, I'd like to elaborate, just a little bit, on
some things that were said regarding special recreation
permits, and those people that have been operating here without
permits. In 1996, BLM sent out a request to a long list of
people that were operating here illegally, asking them to get
permitted. BLM, then, did not follow through on that. But,
those people did receive notices. In 1999, BLM established a
moratorium on new commercial permits for recreation, and, at
the time of the Act, there was still a moratorium on those
commercial permits, and they had established--Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm out of time.
Mr. Walden. Go ahead and finish.
Ms. Witzel. Anyway, they had established the moratorium, so
they can do a programmatic EA--so that they could do a
recreation plan--and that never happened. And I would ask that
every effort be made that, in this RMP, we have a recreation
plan, so that we can have our authorizations for the Steens
Mountain Running Camp, the Steens Mountain Packers--all of us--
taken care of, and we don't have to go through this big ordeal
every 5 years. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Witzel follows:]
Statement of Cynthia K. Witzel, Co-Owner, Steens Mountain Packers,
Special Recreation Permit Holder Representative on the Steens Mountain
Advisory Council
Congressman Walden, Congressman Simpson, and members of the
Committee, I truly appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today
regarding the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection
Area Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-399) and its ongoing implementation.
The passage of the Steens Act, as you well know, was the
culmination of a tremendous amount of effort not only on your part, but
by the myriad of different stake holders within the boundaries of the
area. Those of us who live here, raise our families here, and make our
livelihoods from the land, vacillated during the process on a daily
basis as to whether we should gamble on a Clinton Monument, or seize
the opportunity for collaborative legislation. After many soul
searching meetings and sleepless nights, we believed that the language
embodied in the legislation protected our deepest concerns with a
designation including protection for: ``the cultural, economic,
ecological, and social health of the Steens Mountain area; historic and
current recreation uses; reasonable access to private inholdings; not
just protecting but promoting viable and sustainable grazing and
recreation operations; and perhaps fundamentally most important that
``nothing in this Act is intended to affect rights or interests in real
property.''
Following nearly two years of the BLM's implementation of the
Steens Act, I am very disappointed. My frustration is not with the
language of the Act itself for I still believe it addresses and
provides solutions for the issues in front of us. My frustration is
with the BLM. Whether the impetus for the BLM's actions comes from the
local level, the state office, or the solicitors, the result is the
same, the Act is not being interpreted as a whole. Pieces and parts of
the language from the Act are used standing alone to make decisions
which directly violate other provisions of the Act.
The examples of this, particularly with regard to recreation and
private land access, are many. I am happy to elaborate on specific
examples at your request. From the very beginning, the BLM interpreted
the Act to more significantly restrict road right of ways or boundary
setbacks within the CMPA than even within Wilderness. Special
Recreation Permit (SRP) holders were told in the spring of 2001 that
there would be many changes that recreation season for use in the
Wilderness, but BLM would not tell us what those changes would be
making for a very unstable business environment. In the fall of 2001,
BLM asked all of the historic SRP holders to submit massive additional
paperwork and maps in order to complete EA's on their operations prior
to the start of their authorizations this summer. In the meantime, the
BLM is issuing SRP's to entities that were not legal historic permit
holders without completing any EA's on their operations. The DRAFT EA
which has not yet been finalized for Steens Mountain Running Camp does
not include adequate language regarding the Cooperative Management and
Protection Area and does not analyze any of the CMPA components in the
critical elements section. This means that BLM is still not analyzing
the social, cultural, or economic health of the Steens Mountain area
and is not promoting viable and sustainable recreation operations. The
EA's for the other seven historic permit holders will follow Steens
Mountain Running Camps and will include much the same language. The
historic recreation permit holders have virtually begged the BLM to
complete a comprehensive programmatic EA and recreation plan on the
entire recreation program to no avail. After numerous discussions over
the last six months, BLM is not moving forward on including a
programmatic recreation EA in the comprehensive Resource Management
Plan required by the Act. Additionally, the SMAC has recommended by
consensus that BLM implement a recreation monitoring and information
gathering program, but BLM has disregarded the main thrust of the
recommendation.
The solution to the recreation and Special Recreation Permit holder
issue lies in the BLM reading the Act as a whole, acknowledging that
the Wilderness was created on equal footing with the other purposes of
the Act, and within the Cooperative Management and Protection Area.
Continued Congressional oversight is a must as this new animal, the
CMPA establishes its own identity.
I believe that it is premature to take the recreation issues before
Congress for further resolution under new legislation. The process and
elements of the Steens Act have not had time yet to work. If there is
new legislation drafted to address these issues regarding SRP holders,
it should include provisions for all of the historic special recreation
permit holders as we are all under the same window of risk from those
environmental entities who do not want any commercial activities to
take place within Wilderness. Wilderness Watch (WW) has threatened all
of the historic recreation permit holders permits with legal action.
The Steens Mountain Running Camp EA is only the first of three EA's
that BLM is completing as a result of WW's harassment. Perhaps a
solution providing for different classes of special recreation permits
such as Mr. Davies suggested can provide protection for the historic
permittees while allowing new commercial recreation permits to be
issued and meeting the purposes of the Act.
Reasonable access to private inholdings both within the CMPA and
the Wilderness are guaranteed by the Act under Section 112(e)(1). The
BLM is insisting upon authorizing this access through a NEPA process
whether they do so through the CFR 2920 permit regulations or some
other creative cooperative agreement solution. The landowners did not
agree to go forward with the Steens Act only to have the access to
their private lands open for years of appeals and litigation in a
public process. These private lands were homesteaded through the
homestead Acts and access is a right attributed to the properties. The
Steens Act does not mandate that reasonable access be authorized
through this process defined by the Wilderness regulations. In fact,
the Steens Act Title II, Steens Mountain Wilderness Area, specifically
says that, ``The Secretary shall provide reasonable access to private
lands within the boundaries of the Wilderness Area, as provided in
section 112(d)'' within the Title I CMPA section, not as provided by
the Wilderness Act. The Wilderness regulations themselves do not refer
at all to the term ``reasonable access'', nor does the Wilderness Act.
The Steens Act however, is different, manages inholder access
differently, and uses different terminology. Additionally, the Interior
Board of Land Appeals (IBLA) has ruled recently in a wilderness access
case that if the Act under which a Wilderness Area was created has
special provisions which are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act, the
Act which created the particular Wilderness Area at issue supersedes
the Wilderness Act. IBLA goes on to say that it is not necessary to
codify in regulation a specific provision of an Act that effects the
activities within one or a few Wilderness Areas, and that those
provisions also supersede Federal regulations. The tools for
implementing the Steens Act within its legislative intent, and in the
context of the law are within BLM's hands. All the agency has to do is
read the Act in its entirety, and apply its provisions with all
purposes on equal footing. While those of us here on the ground know
that you have a full plate back in Washington, your continued
Congressional oversight of the implementation of the Steens Act is
imperative for its intent to come to fruition. Again, I believe that we
should allow the CMPA's identity to become defined rather than wade
into new legislation at this time which may only complicate the
purposes and intent of the Steens Act. If new legislation is proposed,
it should specifically say, ``The Secretary shall allow access to non-
federally owned land or interests in land to allow the owner of the
land or interest in the land full use and enjoyment thereof.''
Finally, when I stepped forward to serve on the Steens Mountain
Advisory Council (SMAC), I believed that it was a way in which I could
offer my vast knowledge of the Steens, the public, and recreation, both
as a business and an activity, to the BLM in developing a comprehensive
resource management plan. I envisioned this plan to be something that
would define how the Steens would be managed, and clear up the gray
areas at least for the duration of the plan. I have found it
frustrating to find that what we will have in 2004 is not going to be a
plan, certainly not a plan in the sense that people in the real world
have to create a plan. This RMP will really be just a big, fat policy
statement that can be changed with the wind. There are certain things
within the boundaries of the CMPA which really need a ``Plan'', not a
policy statement, including recreation as a whole, public access, and
juniper management. I have been frustrated by the spinning wheels
within the SMAC when confronted with process or issues of whether or
not we can participate in a particular issue. Specifically, there is
conflict between the directives the Council is given by the Steens Act
and the limitations imposed on it by its charter. FACA has raised some
issues as well with conflict of interest clauses, an issue the Governor
brought up in his recent letter to the SMAC, and other issues.
Continued oversight is necessary to ensure the intent of the Steens Act
and the legislatively created Council's mission are fulfilled.
In closing, I have been asked my opinion of the Steens Act, and
whether or not it has been a good thing, on more than one occasion by
those in other areas considering supporting this type of legislation in
particular in the Owyhee's. I am guardedly optimistic about the Steens
Act, but am unwilling to jump on the bandwagon and tell those asking my
opinion to support legislation for Wilderness within their own
backyard. I believe the Steens Act balances competing interests and
provides a way for the environment and the economic, social, and
cultural health of the area to be protected. However, only through
continued vigilance on the part of the Congressional delegation will
the BLM interpret the law in its entirety, and within its original
legislative intent. The devil is in the details so if I were giving
input on new legislation it would be this: say what you mean, don't
sugar coat it, get specific, and if it doesn't fly, well, then it
wasn't meant to. The Steens Act gets specific, it talks about historic
and current recreation uses and operations a multitude of times.
Nowhere in the Act does it say that a use is eliminated or cannot
happen. Yet even this language is not specific enough for the agency to
move forward and implement the Act as a whole at least not as of yet.
Thank you again for this opportunity and for your commitment to our
community. I welcome your questions.
______
Mr. Walden. Thank you. I want to add something to what
Harland said, and if you want, Mr. Yriarte, we can put those
letters in the official record, as well. So, they're here. And
I'd also seek permission for the Committee to submit, for the
record, an e-mail from Jill Workman, dated August 24, 2000,
which I'll read in part from, because it is specifically
addressed to the issue of the running camp, at a time when the
legislation was being considered and there were issues being
raised about how the running camp might be affected, as well as
other special-use--or, recreation-use permit holders.
But this one, specifically, was about the running camp, and
I want to quote, because it's important. She says--and I won't
read it all--but she says, ``...As chair of the Steens-Alvord
Coalition, I'm writing to let you know that the Coalition views
the running camp as relatively benign. We do not take issue
with its continued existence, nor do we intend to attempt to
incorporate into the legislation any language that would limit
or force the running camp to change its operation. We do not
know which portion of the legislation is causing such concern
to the camp's owner. It seems apparent that the potential
legislation was discussed with campers, both last and this
summer.''--Some letters transpired--``As you may know, the
running camp houses its campers in tents on private land. The
campers spend the majority of their days running through the
gorges of Steens Mountains, much of which is public land. I
doubt that most visitors to the mountain realize the camp is
there. The camp has a special-use permit from BLM, and we have
not proposed any changes to that permit. I'm hopeful that
addressing this matter now will keep the running camp from
becoming an issue, as we attempt to move forward with consensus
legislation. Please call...'' And this is Jill Workman, chair
of Steens-Alvord Coalition, and I believe she was also a
member--probably still is--of the Sierra Club.
I submit this for the record, Mr. Chairman, because I think
it really speaks to the collaborative process that we had going
on at that time, trying to resolve these issues as they came
up, so we all knew where we were as we moved forward. And I
want to publicly, actually, say some nice things about Bill
Marlett, that may surprise him.
[Laughter.]
But, he's been very honorable to work with in this process,
and when he says, ``A deal's a deal,'' a deal's a deal. Now, he
and I don't always agree, as you might have guessed, on
legislative proposals. But, on this one, we did. And I want to
speak to a couple of points you raised, Bill, because I think
they're important, in terms of ``a deal's a deal.''.
In each of the last two Congresses, I have submitted
letters of request to the appropriators for funding, to help
further implement the Act. And, in fact, did so again prior to
the deadline this year--to seek funding. Unfortunately, there's
nobody on the Oregon Delegation in the House that sits on the
Appropriations Committee, so we submit these letters; we
advocate for them; and we'll continue to try and get funding--
to continue to try and implement the Act. As far as the WSA's
go--The flip side of the WSA's, as you and I had a rather
spirited discussion, was that those that were left aside were
there because we couldn't agree to put them in wilderness. But,
beyond that, nor could we agree to release any WSA's that had
been deemed by prior review not to be suitable for wilderness.
And so, that sort of--Both those issues were set off the table,
at some point. I think you and I have a different view on WSA's
and release language, but I think, ultimately, that was the
issue.
And let me make a comment, too, because this issue of the
proposed land exchanges, and all, has come up a couple of
times. The boundary adjustments, I think, we can probably reach
an agreement on, and probably be able to move forward on. But
it seems to me that there's a missing element in these
exchanges that are being considered under some draft
legislation, and that is: Public input in the process. And
before those can move forward at all, there's got to be some--
There's got to be more public vetting. And I think we also have
to look very carefully at the land that's proposed for exchange
with the forest service, because I think there's some community
issues there, certainly in the Sisters area.
So, it would be my intent, down the road, to make sure
there are public hearings, that maybe we can get the Resources
Committee at, again. But at least some public venues for here
and in central Oregon, so people can address those--much like
we did when we did the Steens legislation.
I want to, next--I've got a couple of questions I'd like to
ask, at this time, to Cindy Witzel. How is BLM's implementation
actions and their response to Wilderness Watch's threat
impacted your recreation operation? How is all that affecting
you right now?
Ms. Witzel. Well, I think there's a number of ways it's
affected us. Originally, following the Act, in 2000 and the
spring of 2001, BLM indicated to us that there were going to be
substantial changes in our use in wilderness that season. And
we asked them what those changes were going to be, and they
wouldn't pin themselves down as to what those changes were
going to be. We actually didn't advertise until quite late in
the season, in June, because we were uncertain that we'd even
really be able to run our trips, and we felt we'd have too much
liability to the public to do that. And we solidified a lease
on some private land, as a result, and then went ahead and
advertised our trips. But we really took a hit that season. And
since that time, we've spent a great deal of time--Harland,
myself, the other permit holders, Jerry Temple--going to
meetings, trying to negotiate a plan of action with the BLM to
address the NEPA process. We asked and asked the BLM to do
programmatic EA's, rather than individual EA's. They declined.
They wanted to do individual EA's. And so, it's really cost us
a great deal of time, and put a great deal of instability into
our businesses--all of ours.
Mr. Walden. I want to follow-up on a comment, Bill, that
you made on the grazing on the cow-free wilderness, and I
appreciate that the situation there is taking longer to
phaseout. Can you tell me how that phase-out is going? Is there
an agreement in place?
Mr. Marlett. There's not a written agreement. There's more
or less a verbal agreement, that it will proceed as quickly as
possible. In part, it was based on the assumption, last year,
of getting the monies appropriated for implementation of the
fencing, and so on and so forth, which has since occurred. So,
we're assuming that once those fences go up, that the cows go
out. So, whether it's this year or next year, is kind of a moot
point. It's just that--
Mr. Walden. --it's moving in the direction to satisfy the
Act.
Mr. Marlett. Correct.
Mr. Walden. OK. Let me ask your opinion of this question,
that keeps coming up, about access to private property. How
would you deal with this, in terms of allowing access to
private property?
Mr. Marlett. Well, this is why I complemented BLM, because
I guess I wouldn't want have to deal with it, but--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. Well, that's actually one of the problems, in
both the Wilderness Act and a lot of the other Acts that we
pass. We say ``adequate,'' we say ``reasonable,'' then we don't
define what that means. So, we're to blame for this too.
Mr. Marlett. Long-term, at least within the wilderness
area--I mentioned there were 5000 acres, plus or minus private
inholdings--At some point down the road, hopefully, we can have
all of those private lands acquired, on a willing--by a
willing-seller basis--and that issue goes away. In the
meantime, BLM has to--They're stuck in a position of wanting to
be able to tell someone who walks in their front door that, you
know, someone's hiking through the wilderness area, and see
someone, perhaps, driving a three-wheeler into their private
access area--inholding. They need to be accountable. They need
to tell someone who walks in the front door, that's, you know,
from Seattle, and says, ``Gee, I thought that was a wilderness
area, but I saw a three-wheeler riding through there.'' They
need to be able to say, ``Well, yeah, that was Joe, and he's
under permit, because he has private lands that he can
reasonably access under this permit.''.
So, you know, you have to balance between BLM's
responsibility to be accountable to a wider public, coupled
with the rights of the individual to access their inholding.
And it's a balancing. And, so far, we've been working under the
notion that, at least with the key stakeholders, that there's
this element of trust and we will do the best we can to
accommodate each other. And I think we've been doing a pretty
good job. And I think for those who have private inholdings, I
can empathize with how they feel, and I guess they just need to
empathize a little bit with BLM's responsibility to a wider
audience.
Mr. Walden. Let me shift gears to the juniper management
issue, which is a real one, and we've all had discussions about
this. What do you feel needs to be accomplished, and what about
in those WSA's? What kind of mechanisms do you think ought to
be allowed in there, to accomplish the juniper management?
Mr. Marlett. That's been, kind of, an ongoing issue. We--
the conservation community and the ranchers--agree that we need
to deal with this issue, specifically, both in the wilderness
and WSA's. We don't have any particular plan of action that
we've agreed to. We just know that it has to be dealt with. You
know, prescribed fire in some places. How do we go in and
create the necessary fuel base to let fires carry, is kind of
an ongoing question. Whether you can go in there with chainsaws
and cut down the junipers, or--through some other means. We've
toyed with ideas like using flamethrowers and things like that.
I'm not sure that would be a nonmechanized vehicle.
Mr. Walden. You and President Bush have something in common
now.
[Laughter.]
He told me, when I flew with him on Air Force 1, that that
was where he was headed next--was out to the ranch. And he's
got some fancy flamethrower he uses to take care of--They call
them ``cedars'' down there, in Texas.
Mr. Marlett. Maybe we could put him under contract.
Mr. Walden. Careful what kind of contract you describe
here, too--to law enforcement.
Mr. Marlett. Figuratively speaking. And it's something that
we don't--Like I say, we don't have agreement on. But, we are
committed to working together, to find a solution. In fact,
we're--If we haven't already--submitting a grant proposal. It
was a joint effort between Roaring Springs Ranch and ONDA. I
mean, we want to find some way to make this work, in such a way
that Stacy Davis gets up here next time and says, ``I want more
wilderness, because, heck, we can do what we need to do on
juniper.''.
Mr. Walden. What about this--Let me ask you--This whole
issue of these special-recreation permit holders. It seems to
me that when we had these discussions and put together this
Act, it was our intent to preserve their historic ability to do
what they're doing on the mountain. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Marlett. Yes.
Mr. Walden. And how do we do that, in this context of
Wilderness Watch coming in and, basically, I think, publicly
saying they're going to sue Harland's effort, no matter what?
Is there a way to do this?
Mr. Marlett. Well, I'm not sure that we were the--Well, I'm
not sure we were the perfect draftspeople, when we crafted this
Act. There's only a certain level of prescription that you can
write into a piece of legislation. We did the best we could,
and I guess my gut feeling is that there's enough intent, both
in writing and between the lines, that BLM could hold off the
challenge, if need be. I do not want to take away anyone's
right to challenge any decision the BLM or government agency
makes. I mean, that's--It is a democracy, and we all have that
right to challenge the BLM, if we don't like their decision.
You know, the question more is: Can BLM craft a document that
clearly reflects the intent of the legislation? That's what it
boils down to.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. And thank you--all three of you--
for your testimony. I really don't have any questions. I've
just got some observations.
I always like to try and--The comment ``willing seller,
willing buyer''--I know we put that in language all the time.
If we deny access to private inholders, I guarantee you're
going to create a whole lot of willing sellers. Somehow, we
need to make sure that willing sellers are truly willing
sellers. And the idea of someone owning private property and
not being able to access it--It's bizarre almost. And that
means being able to access my property when I want to go there.
That's why I bought it. That's why I own it. So, I find this
whole debate about access kind of strange.
And I think what happens--and this concerns me, relative
not only here, but what I'm working on, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, in Idaho--is that we get people together, in
a local area, and we decide ``We've got an area. Yeah, we want
to protect it.'' And we develop a plan. And I think that if you
ask 99 percent of people around here, my own observation about
whether this running camp ought to exist there, when this was
done, they'd say, ``Yeah. It's a good thing.'' Or, that Packers
ought to exist, and those uses that were there ought to exist,
yeah--that that's a good thing. And so, you get together with
the people that are involved, and the people who have an
interest, and the local people--whether it's environmentalists,
ranchers, whatever--They come together and they reach an
agreement. And we put it into words and draft legislation and
pass it in Congress. And then, groups that were never a party
to it--that are outside groups--come in and decide that they
are going to interpret it, they're going to challenge every
decision that's made, they're going to sue everybody. And I've
got a real problem with that. And I suggest--And I agree with
you, Bill. I don't want to take away people's constitutional
rights to challenge decisions made by government, and so forth.
But this management-by-lawsuit that we've got going on in this
country, somehow has to end.
Right now, the forest service tells me, as an example, that
they spend between 25 and 50 percent of their resources making
a good decision, based on the science, the facts, everything
else. And then, between 50 percent and 75 percent of their
resources trying to make it bulletproof to lawsuits. And that,
to me, is an enormous waste of resources, that could be used in
proper management of our lands. I suspect the BLM would have
those same types of figures--That they spend an inordinate
amount of time trying to make decisions that they make, in the
public's interest, bulletproof from somebody that's going to
sue them on one side or the other. They know whatever decision
they make, they're going to get sued.
But, oftentimes, where local people and local groups could
sit down work and work out these problems--and this Advisory
Council is a good example--Then, all of a sudden you've got--
What is it?--Wilderness Watch, who was not really involved in
the decision of all this, now deciding that they are issuing
these kind of reports that Harland talked about, and deciding
that they are going to file lawsuits on some of these things.
As I've talked to the environmentalists that we are working
with in my area on trying to create a Boulders-White Cloud's
wilderness area--They've actually said to me, ``You know, one
of our problems, from our point of view, is that we can create
a decision here, that we did all agree with, and it will go to
Congress, and we may have some of our national environmental
groups come out opposed to it.'' And I've told them, ``If that
happens, I expect you to be at the witness table testifying in
favor of it, even though your ties--your economic ties--to
those national groups may make you think twice.''.
As we come to an agreement where we can manage something--
we can make a decision--then I want you in favor of it, not out
here saying, ``Well...'' and backing off of it. And they've
agreed that that's something that they have to do. And I'd
suggest that, should some of these outside groups come in and
try to challenge some of these recreational permits or whatever
that's going on there, or some of these access issues, that if
these people that are on this Advisory Council that are working
on these issues--They need to stand together. If that means
that the environmentalists on those groups disagree with them,
they need to stand up and say so. And they need to be on the
other side when they go to court, and say, ``You're wrong. This
is not what we agreed to.'' And I respect Congressman Walden's
opinion--When you say, ``A deal is a deal,'' I've found that to
be true with you, and with many other people that I've talked
to, and many other people in the environmental community. But
they do have problems, sometimes, with their national groups.
So, if they challenge a suit, and you've decided, and this
group's decided, that this running camp is something that was
really contemplated in this legislation--maybe not written in
the best way possible, but was contemplated that it had minimal
use--diminutus impact, as was written, or said, in the
statement that Congressman Walden read--and that was something
that everybody agreed to--would expect you, and the other
people that were involved in this from the start, to stand up
and say so. And to say so to these national groups that come
in--and say, ``If you're going to file suit, you're going to
have to file it not only against him, but you're going to file
it against the BLM, and you're going to file it against us,
too, because we're going to be on the other side of this
issue.''.
And that's how I think we can manage and maintain some
local control of these decisions where we can actually reach
some agreements and do some good management and create and save
and protect some of this property that we all agree we need to
do. I don't know if you have any response to that, but that's
just, kind of, my observation, rather than anything else. But I
do appreciate all of you--your testimony, today. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Walden. And I just going to say, Congressman Simpson,
that I think when this got to the Congress, some of what we had
agreed to here--We ran into some roadblocks with the national
groups, but got over those at that point. And I think--I mean,
correct me if I'm wrong here--But, I think the National Sierra
Club--Didn't the Wilderness Society, the Nature Conservancy,
all endorse the legislation?
Mr. Marlett. That's correct.
Mr. Walden. Nationally. And Mr. Marlett helped with that
end, for this to occur.
Mr. Marlett. For the record, I just want to--And I'm not
taking any position, or saying anything that should be
construed as adversarial, by any stretch--But, in the heat of
the discussions, when we were coming to an agreement, there
were a lot of things--a lot of details--that were just, kind
of, flying under the radar screen. And what we're seeing now is
part of what happened back then, 2 years ago, that there wasn't
a whole lot of discussion on a lot of issues--that it was more
in the conceptual level up here--and now we're paying the
price. And part of that is, you know, no one's fault at all.
It's just that we were working in a very short time duration,
trying to make a lot of decisions quickly, and, as a
consequence, not a lot of discussion went into every single
issue.
Mr. Walden. Although, I can remember some paragraphs that
took weeks.
[Laughter.]
And some words--individual words.
Any other comments? Thank you very much. Mr. Yriarte, we're
going to invite you back to testify in Washington, too, because
we've never had a Basque testify with quite the flair that
you've brought.
[Laughter.]
OK. We'll call up our final panel this afternoon. Mr. Stacy
Davies, Manager, Oregon Springs Ranch; Mr. Fred Otley, a
grazing permittee; and, Mr. Jerry Sutherland, from the Sierra
Club.
Mr. Walden. Stacy, why don't we go ahead and start with
you? Before I do, let me just say that--for all of you in the
prior panels, too--Your prepared statements have been made part
of the official record. You're welcome to work from those, or
submit them, and address other issues, as well. So, welcome to
each and every one of you. Thank you for coming over and being
here.
Stacy, with that, I'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF STACY DAVIES, MANAGER, ROARING SPRINGS RANCH,
GRAZING PERMITTEE, FRENCHGLEN, OREGON
Mr. Davies. Thank you very much, Congressman Walden and
Congressman Simpson, for being here and inviting me to speak at
this hearing. One of the things we struggle with on the ground
is: How can we direct an agency to--How can we direct and
agency to change their direction? There's litigation; there's
legislation; there's advisory group efforts; and individual
lobbying. And some of those are, obviously, more effective than
others. And I get, you know, really cranky with the fear the
agency has all the time with possible litigation. I really
appreciate this effort, through the legislative body, of giving
them direction. That's very, very helpful.
I was just handed a letter from the Snowmobile Club, that
they want me to read in--and I won't read my entire--my entire
written testimony, as it would be redundant. And I would ask,
maybe, that this could be submitted as part of the official
record.
Mr. Walden. Sure. And, again, for people in the audience,
there's 30 days to submit written testimony for the Committee,
that will be accepted.
Mr. Davies. I wish I had a little more time. I could have
read this and paraphrased it. So, I'm just going to read part
of it.
``As you're aware, since the passage of Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Act, there's been a great
deal of frustration among those historic recreational users of
the mountain, whose rights to continue to recreate on the
mountain were thought to have been assured. At public meetings
and different forums on and off the mountain, we have seen
several examples of BLM employee's selective use of portions of
the language of the Act, not merely to impede, hinder, or delay
recreational use, but to actually completely obstruct or
prevent snowmobiling anywhere on the mountain, except on the
main roads and private property. Many of us feel that this is
inappropriate, unacceptable, and contrary to the intent and
purpose of the Act itself.''.
I'll stop at that point. And I totally agree with the
things that were said there. And I like the way it was
written--that it's broad recreation. Snowmobiling was stopped
on the mountain. I see great concern as we move into summer and
fall, for the hunters and fishermen, as they try to access some
of the places they have in the past. The interpretation the
Agency's taken on recreational access is not what we intended.
EA's should not be necessary for continued activities. An
EA was not completed to stop grazing on the mountain. It was
mandated by the Act. Historical and continued access to
property was mandated by the Act. I see no reason an EA should
be conducted on that activity. The cost of an EA--the cost of
participating in the processes for an individual operator--
Harland; Cindy; any of us, as ranchers--When an EA is conducted
on our permit, we spend a great deal of time and effort and
money in that process. And that hurts our economic
sustainability. Some of these operations are small enough that
the amount of time they spend--For example, Harland, and those
who are with him, said, this morning, that copies for this
hearing were 160 bucks. When you take the minimal--And the
EA's--the e-mails and the phone calls and trips to D.C., and
things that go on, surrounding an environmental assessment--
cost of meetings with the Agency--those things add up the cost.
And it needs to be taken into account.
Economics are very, very difficult for the agency to
analyze. The Steens Act mandates they consider the economic
sustainability of the operations--that they analyze the social
impacts, the cultural impacts, as well as the ecological
impacts, of their decisions. And we need to make sure that they
do that. They've never done it in the past, and they need to
begin to do it. That's one of the things that separates the
Steens Act from anything else.
One way to accomplish that is programmatic EA's. They
consider a use, in a broad scope, and I think they could do
most of those through the EIS. Then, those costs and those
difficulties would go away, to quite an extent.
One issue that has not come up is wildfire management on
the mountain--the impact of wilderness designation of the
ability of the local people to manage that fire. On Steens
Mountain, there are good fires and bad fires. The local people
are good people. They need to be able to make those decisions.
The local are good people, and they are able to make a lot of
good decisions, as long as we keep the state and national
offices out of the way. I say that pretty bluntly, but I'm
getting tired of it. We can never pin them down on--They always
say, ``No, we can't do this. No, we can't do that.'' Well, why
can't you do that? And it's always a spin job. I liked
Harland's definition of ``spin.'' Bureaucrats are better at it
than anyone. And so, we need to get a level where the local
people can do the things they're meant to do, and they do a
good job of it, and I commend them for it.
My vision, when I participating in the creation of the Act,
was that we were creating an area that would have innovative,
cooperative, proactive, positive management--collaborative
management. We would work together--those of us with different
interests--and we'd find solutions--solution oriented. As I
look at the RMP that's being developed, and a lot of the
actions that have taken place--It's the same old ``take it,
mandate it, force it'' kind of a situation. And I hope that we
can find a way to get past that, and get into the process of
finding innovative, cooperative methods of managing for
economic, social, ecological, and cultural boundaries. Thank
you.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davies follows:]
Statement of Stacy L. Davies, Manager, Roaring Springs Ranch, Grazing
Permittee Representative on Steens Mountain Advisory Council
Congressman Walden and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you this day regarding the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000(Public Law
106-399)
A great deal of effort and time was expended on creating the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA). It is a
noble and innovative Act that protects the Cultural, Economic,
Ecological, and Social health of Steens Mountain Area for present and
future generations. The ``Steens Act'' clearly protects people and
their use equally with biological, geological, and ecological type
values. It laid out a framework for the Bureau of Land Management to
work cooperatively with landowners, permittees, and users of the
mountain to achieve common goals. A process and committee were designed
to assist the BLM with ongoing unique and cooperative management
efforts in the future.
Implementation of the Act has been very disappointing on many
fronts. Success has been achieved on other fronts. I will address six
areas where solutions need to be found; in addition I will discuss 2
areas of success which could serve as a pattern for finding solutions
to the difficult areas.
I will preface the problem areas with what I believe to be the root
of the problem. The agency should have allowed the status quo to
continue until the management plan or decision document for change was
completed. Instead the agency took an extreme protection/
preservationist position and stopped many activities until a decision
document allows the use to resume.
Access to private property. Landowners have accessed their property
at will since the first homesteads were taken up, over one hundred
years ago. Within weeks of passage of the Act, November of 2000,
landowners were verbally put on notice that they will be required to
obtain a permit or lease to access their property. The permits would be
issued for three-year terms after going through a full blown
environmental analysis process. Each renewal would require a full
environmental assessment as well. Leases could be longer term but a
yearly fee will be required. Number of trips per year and timing of
trips could have heavy stipulations attached under either the permit or
lease.
Historic and reasonable access is guaranteed under the Steens Act
and the Wilderness Act. Economic stability is dependent on ones ability
to access the property. The ``Steens Act'' specifically states:
``Nothing in this Act shall affect any valid and existing right.''
(Section 4) Also, Section 122(d): ``Relation to Property Rights and
State and Local Law--- Nothing in this Act is intended to affect rights
or interests in real property or supercede state law.''
Specific language regarding private property access from Section
112(e)(1): ``Reasonable Access--The secretary shall provide reasonable
access to non-federally owned lands or interests in land within the
boundaries of the Cooperative Management and Protection Area to provide
the owner of the land or interest the reasonable use thereof.''
Reasonable access for the reasonable use of ones land should not
require NEPA analysis and the potential appeal and litigation that
follows.
Currently the SMAC and landowners are working with the BLM to see
if some sort of Cooperative Agreement for access can be written to
satisfy all interests. If this cannot be accomplished we may need a
definition of reasonable from congress.
I would strongly suggest the following language be used in any
future wilderness or designation type legislation that contains Private
land or access to private land. ``The secretary shall allow access to
non-federally owned land or interests in land to allow the owner of the
land or interest full use and enjoyment thereof.''
Section 112(c) of the Act specifically says that: ``Any
determination to permanently close an existing road in the CMPA or to
restrict the access of motorized or mechanized vehicles on certain
roads shall be made in consultation with the advisory council and the
public.'' Many roads have since been closed and access restricted
without consultation of the public or the advisory council. I think
this is a blatant example of the extreme position the agency took at
the beginning. I have seen the BLM come back to the middle on many
issues and this particular issue will get full review as the
transportation plan is developed. Although, reopening some of these
roads may require congressional oversight.
Special Recreation Permit (SRP) operators are currently in great
danger. The original eight SRP operations were to be protected and
allowed to continue operating at historic levels and ensured
sustainable operations.
The BLM with some pressure from outside groups is currently
threatening the future of these operations with stipulations and
harassment that significantly threatens their sustainability.
Meanwhile, new operations are being issued permits with no NEPA
documentation and limited operating plans.
For many years the agency has stood by while illegal SRP operations
were being conducted. Increased scrutiny forced the BLM to issue
permits to allow many of these operations to become legal. Those who
operated legally for years continue to be penalized, while those who
skirted the rules in the past are now being issued permits.
The original eight should be grandfathered in and given a Class A
permit. Those who operated in the past illegally, could be permitted
with a Class B permit after full environmental analysis and only if it
is not at the expense of or in competition with the original eight.
Completely new permittee's might be allowed a permit after full
analysis and only if the permitted use is not at the expense or in
competition with Class A and Class B permittee's. This classification
system does not currently exist within agency regulations and should be
analyzed in the upcoming Resource Management Plan.
Statements were made that grazing permittees and wildlife interests
would prefer wilderness designation to Wilderness Study Area's. The
point being made was that Wilderness Study Areas carried a non-
degradation restriction that would be lifted with Wilderness
designation that allows for management activities to occur. None of us
believed it to the full extent of the statements, but we did feel and
were assured that the Arizona guidelines would protect our ability to
use mechanical means of maintaining our grazing operations in an
economically sustainable manner.
Currently no machinery is allowed within the wilderness area until
the BLM completes an environmental assessment allowing use of
machinery.
As grazing permittees we were assured that our operations would not
change significantly. We interpret the Act to say that economic
sustainability is of equal importance to ecological protection.
Economic sustainability, the natural landscape and rough roads limit
the use of machinery to a minimum number of trips necessary. Further
limits placed artificially through BLM regulation is contrary to our
interpretation of the Act and could threaten economic sustainability of
grazing operations. I will certainly speak loudly in opposition of
future Wilderness designations if the extreme preservationist
interpretation is allowed to stand and grazing operators are negatively
impacted.
There is clearly disagreement and lack of clear direction for the
Steens Mountain Advisory Council. Conflicts between the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, BLM regulations, the Steens Act, and the
charter sent from the National office has caused a great deal of
confusion within the meetings. Certain members of the committee appear
to be trying to stall any progress the committee tries to make and the
confusion between the before mentioned documents allows turmoil to
prevail. In addition, many of the unique and new approaches that are
discussed are immediately dismissed or even cut short by the BLM as the
solution is inconsistent with one of their many policies or
regulations.
Can the SMAC make recommendations to congressional members or are
all recommendations to be made to the Secretary of Interior?
The agency is banned from discussing legislative issues and making
recommendations to congressional members. Can the SMAC committee
discuss legislative issues?
Many of the ``unique and new approaches to the management of lands
within the area'' will stretch the comfort zone of BLM managers and
solicitors. Can congressional members help the agency personnel find
ways to accomplish the recommendations?
Section 132 covers the responsibilities of the council,
specifically the council is to make recommendations to the Secretary
regarding: (a)(2) states: ``cooperative programs and incentives for
seamless landscape management that meets human needs and maintains and
improves the ecological and economic integrity of the CMPA.'' The BLM
never analyzes human needs or economic integrity. We are finding the
BLM is having great difficulty considering many of the mandates the Act
requires them to consider.
New legislation is not presently necessary but continued oversight
and assistance from congress is going to be essential for the full
cooperative potential and innovative intent of the Act to be obtained.
General public recreational use is being limited on most public
land on the mountain. As the recreating public comes to the mountain
and is restricted on public lands more and more use is occurring on
private lands.
Fragmentation of the landscape by forcing landowners to manage
property along ownership boundaries rather than cooperation between
landowners allowing landscape management was a critical purpose in
drafting the legislation and one of the primary damages a monument
declaration would have caused.
The greatest attraction of Steens Mountain has always been the
unconfined recreational opportunities. The ability to drive a two-track
road and have a family picnic in a lush mountain meadow. The seclusion
of undeveloped camping spots hidden in aspen groves. The tradition of
family deer camps in the same juniper patch around the same handmade
fire ring.
This past winter, snowmobiles were not allowed to use the mountain
as they have in the past. In fact use was only allowed on the loop road
and on private land. As summer begins and the fishermen arrive will
they only be allowed on private land? As fall approaches where will
hunters be allowed to hunt? The many families that have traditions of
camping or picnicking on the mountain; will there use be allowed?
The Act guarantees historical recreation will continue.
Unfortunately, it does not allow motorized vehicles off road unless
they are on a designated trail. What is the definition of a road? The
current definition used by the agency disqualifies nearly every route
on the mountain. What many would call a road is considered a way under
agency definition. Therefore, it will be critical that numerous trails
are designated for motorized vehicles in the transportation plan. I
would suggest that trails may need to be 2000 feet wide along aspen
groves to accommodate campers to pull off the road in an enjoyable
camping area. An area for snowmobiling must be designated as a
motorized trail. It may need to be several thousand acres.
Congressional oversight on this issue is going to be necessary to avoid
thousands of unhappy families who are left without a place to recreate.
Is it right to close the public lands to public recreation and
expect the private landowners to continue to allow more and more use?
Funding for Juniper management and to fulfill section 114, 121, and
122 of the Act. The Steens Mountain Advisory Council and various other
interested parties have repeatedly requested the appropriation of five
million dollars to fulfill the authorization found in Section 702. More
specifically; Cooperative Agreements, Non-development Easements,
Conservation Easements and Acquisitions of property are essential
elements of the compromises which were made to allow enact the ``Steens
Act''. The SMAC in addition to non-official collaborators have agreed
that the $5 million be divided equally between acquisitions, easements
and agreements. I would recommend that the appropriations language
specifically reflect this agreement by saying: ``$2.5 million be
appropriated to fulfill sections 121 and 122 of Public Law 106-399 and
$2.5 million be appropriated for section 114.'' $5 million was
authorized for juniper management under section 501'' ). Requests have
been made for a $1 million appropriation at this time.
This funding is critical for continued cooperation between various
interest groups. The easement and cooperative agreement money is
important to fund projects necessary for ecological, economic, social
and cultural health.
These five items are what I feel are the highest priority problems
needing resolution. Following are 2 of several examples of things I
feel are successes.
Due to the delay of organizing the SMAC committee, many of the
stakeholders and interested parties who were involved in the
legislative process met with the BLM and compromised a transition
agreement for grazing permits from use to non-use allowing phase in of
the livestock free wilderness area. In addition, support was gained for
the projects necessary to allow sustainable grazing operations to
continue on the remaining areas. Funding for the projects was slow to
come but eventually did and the BLM is on track to finish the projects
in the appropriate time frame.
Juniper control efforts have continued forward as previously
planned. Several prescribed fires and numerous juniper cuts have been
completed in the interim. Planning for new projects has also continued
without interruption. Environmental community representatives and user
group interests have continued communication and assisted the BLM when
and where needed.
The success story I find of importance here is that multiple and
varying interest groups which normally do not get along are
collaboratively working together to accomplish a goal. Discussions in
the random, informal meetings are solution oriented and positive. What
is the difference between this collaborative group and the more formal
SMAC? How can SMAC meetings become more solution oriented and positive?
In summary, it has been very disheartening to see how quickly
people have lost sight of the vision and focused on details, and become
focused reasons not to change rather than solutions to make it better.
The bureaucracy, worry about process, requirements dictated by policy
or regulation have stopped innovative thinking. Cooperative-landscape
management is impossible if innovative thinking is not allowed. It has
become obvious that the National Landscape Conservation System office
in Washington D.C. cannot differentiate the Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Act of 2000 from the National Monument
declarations made through the Antiquities Act. The State and National
BLM offices will have to fully support the purposes and opportunities
within the Steens Act or the vision of cooperative-landscape level
management will have utterly failed. Solutions will need to be win-win,
proactive, innovative, and inclusive. An attitude of ``I can'' will
need to prevail rather than the too common attitude of ``the policy or
regulation won't allow it''. Local control and local people making
management decisions will be essential to success. I ask that the
Congressional Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public
Lands continue to give oversight and support to the BLM and Steens
Mountain Advisory Committee in ensuring the purposes of the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 are
fulfilled.
______
Mr. Walden. Mr. Sutherland?
STATEMENT OF JERRY SUTHERLAND, SIERRA CLUB, PORTLAND, OREGON
Mr. Sutherland. Thank you, Representatives Walden and
Simpson. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
management of Steens Mountain, on behalf of the Sierra Club and
those environmental groups who cannot be here today, including
Wilderness Watch. Representative Walden, your letters--your
efforts--in getting the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management
Protection Area designated are much appreciated by all of us,
as are the efforts of the rest of Oregon's Delegations. And
it's nice to see Lindsay back, to maybe, take some credit on
that as well, for all of his hard work.
I would like to start by complementing Secretary Norton,
for her selection and support of the Steens Mountain Advisory
Council. SMAC members have all worked long hours to represent
their interest groups. The fact that they can put up with me
for 2 days in a row speaks well for their temperament. BLM
Director Clarke should be proud of the Burns district office.
District manager Tom Dyer is obviously committed to making this
process work, as is the SMAC's designated Federal official,
Miles Brown. They have engaged all the interests in your
efforts, to assure the Oregon's newest wilderness takes a place
of honor in the national wilderness preservation system.
If you judge by the size of my files and the length of our
minutes, the SMAC has covered a lot of ground in 8 months. But,
as others have noted, we're falling behind in our primary task
of helping BLM write the management plan for Steens. Some of
this is to be expected, considering it takes a while for any
group to become familiar with each other, establish procedures,
and learn the laws and regulations that apply. We also are
breaking new ground at every step with Steens. And I'm not
quite sure ``breaking ground'' is a great analogy for an
environmentalist, but I didn't have a better one, so I used it.
I do think that we could change some things that have
slowed us down a bit, like micromanaging BLM. It is
appropriate, at times, for the SMAC to help resolve contentious
issues, when they threaten implementation of Steens and when we
can do something about the issue of concern. Our deliberations,
enabling the Roaring Springs Ranch exchange to proceed, is a
good example. On the other hand, we cannot change laws and
regulations. So, trying to accommodate all those in Harney
County who claim to have been promised, verbally, things,
during the Steens negotiations, is nonproductive. If we did
this, we would also have to consider all those outside Harney
County, who felt promises were broken. Trying to resolve these
contrasting claims, with only verbal promises, would be a
nightmare. At some point, we have to go--get out of this, and
go on with implementation, as it was written in the
legislation. In the future, if we can't work this out, then
legislation might be necessary. But, for now, we need to go
with what we've got in writing.
Conflict of interest, I think, has been more of a factor
than imagined on the SMAC. SMAC members, with business
interests on Steens, are understandably concerned about their
own welfare and their way of life. This is understandable. I
empathize with it, and I think they have handled that sort of
stress far better than I would have. The problem is, in terms
of how long it's taking us to get through this process, is that
it makes it very difficult for us to talk about certain things,
or to bring up certain ideas, to get even started with. The
other part of it is that, if it doesn't go--If they feel too
threatened by it--The next step is to go to--for congressional
influence--to try to force the SMAC or the BLM into doing a
certain thing. This may or may not be effective. The problem is
that it slows the process down, because rather than buckling
down and slugging it out--like we did on the Roaring Springs-
Tabor Cabin issue--It gets deferred to further meetings, in the
hope that there will be rescue coming in from outside.
We have recently spent time on new Steens legislation--
another thing that slowed us down. While we need to be kept
informed of such things, we cannot make legislative
recommendations. We are an advisory to an administration. So,
doing all of this took up time in meetings. Having said all
this, I think we're not terribly far behind. If we stay focused
on the management plan, we will meet the deadline. I enjoyed
being on the SMAC. I enjoyed working with my fellow members and
learning from them. I hope the good folks of Harney County, and
the rest of Oregon, will give the SMAC and the BLM a chance to
do the job we were assigned. Thank you, again, Representatives
Walden and Simpson, for holding this hearing. I, too, would
like to have more of them in Frenchglen.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sutherland follows:]
Statement of Jerry J. Sutherland, Member, High Desert Committee, Oregon
Chapter, Sierra Club, Statewide Environmental Representative, Steens
Mountain Advisory Council
Thank you for providing this opportunity to discuss implementation
of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of
2000 (the Act), and the relationship of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and members of the Steens Mountain Advisory Council (SMAC). All
those who participated in passage of this very special piece of
legislation are to be commended, especially Representative Walden and
his staff (at the time) Lindsay Slater who played significant roles.
Though I am a Sierra Club activist, it is my intention to speak
also on behalf of those I represent on the SMAC who cannot be here
today.
Since this Subcommittee has oversight over the Department of
Interior, let me start by giving credit to Secretary of the Interior
Gale Norton for her selection of SMAC members. Besides my being an
obvious choice, I mean (seriously) to complement my fellow members,
from whom I learn new things at each meeting. Every affected interest
on Steens can feel confident that their concerns are being represented
aggressively. The fact that my fellow SMAC members are able to put up
with me for two days in a row speaks highly of their temperament.
Secretary Norton and BLM Director Kathleen Clarke can both be proud
of the long hours and hard work the Burns BLM office has put in dealing
with interim management issues and supporting the SMAC. The challenges
they faced were many.
Prior to the SMAC's first meeting, the Burns BLM had to make the
calls themselves. All sides were pressuring them to manage Steens based
on their interpretation of the Act. Though my constituents disagreed
with some decisions BLM made, we acknowledge their sincerity in
attempting to fairly implement wilderness regulations and other
immediate changes required by the Act.
For example, the first environmental assessment (EA) BLM wrote
after the Act dealt with fencing, water developments, and other actions
required to enable the cow free wilderness area. Matt Obradovich did a
comprehensive job putting the EA together, but environmentalists
differed drastically with ranchers on many of the proposed actions.
Dave Blackstun, Matt's supervisor (who has since left Burns), wisely
brought the parties together and, acting as mediator, BLM helped us put
together a plan that worked for everyone. Cooperation was a key element
of the Act, and we were motivated to live up to that.
Burns BLM staff contacted the Oregon state office, as well as the
Arizona and California offices, to talk to those with experience
implementing wilderness legislation on BLM lands. They made sure they
were following appropriate regulations and established procedures.
During this time, the Oregon state office discovered Burns had not done
NEPA analysis on any of the Special Recreation Permits (SRP) on Steens.
The EAs now being written on those who hold SRPs on Steens are required
of anyone who wants to do business on BLM land, regardless of
wilderness status.
When Cycle Oregon came to the Steens in September of 2001, Mark
Sherbourne, the Burns BLM Recreation Supervisor, worked diligently with
the organizers, environmental groups, and local communities to make
sure the two thousand participants had a good time, while doing no harm
to the mountain and surrounding ecosystem. I watched Mark and his crews
leaving for home long after dark the night before the event. In
addition, Mark was on site to watch over everything both days. BLM
recognized this event was the first of its size to hit Steens and,
considering the new Steens designation, reacted appropriately.
After the SMAC (finally) came together, our Designated Federal
Official (DFO), Andrews Resource Area Field Manager Miles Brown,
promptly left for Washington DC. This was not for fear of dealing with
us; he had prior commitments to BLM's national office he had to honor.
His assistant, Joan Suther, did a great job of keeping things on track
when Miles could not attend, but we are glad to have him back.
I can't say enough good things about the SMAC's support staff.
Rhonda Karges is a master at organization and communication. Liz
Appelman creates form out of chaos in her meeting minutes, and Patti
Wilson keeps things interesting with her visual aides. Tom Dyer, the
Burns District Manager, is obviously committed to making this process
work and I want to publicly thank him and all the rest of these folks
for their efforts.
It seems to me the SMAC has covered a lot of territory in the last
nine months, at least based on the size of the files I lug around.
However, some feel we have not progressed far enough in terms of
fulfilling the Act's mandate of helping BLM implement the Steens
management plan. I am going to discuss some factors I think contributed
to this, hoping it will help us be more productive as we go forward.
It took some time to set up procedures and become familiar with the
process. For us to act sensibly we needed time to become familiar with
each other's concerns and have an understanding of various laws and
regulations. The farther along we get, the less this will be a factor.
The thing that has slowed us down the most is the degree to which
we have been trying to micromanage BLM. It is quite natural for each of
us to want to use our position on the SMAC to influence the decisions
BLM makes. At our first meeting, I came loaded for bear with concerns
from various constituents on how BLM was handling interim management
decisions. BLM and the SMAC facilitator, Dale White, informed me (very
nicely) that the SMAC was mandated to focus on the big picture and NOT
micromanage. I got the point, and was actually quite relieved. If we
had held to this rule, we would be much farther along.
Unfortunately, in upcoming meetings it seemed we were doing nothing
but micromanaging. BLM explained their apparent change in position by
saying that the SMAC would only be asked to help with specific
decisions if the BLM wanted it. This seems reasonable except that the
issues BLM has chosen to engage the SMAC on have usually been those of
concern to local interests, rather than those of my constituents and
the rest of the public owners of Steens across Oregon and America.
For example, it appears that most everyone in Harney County was
VERBALLY promised one thing or another by unnamed parties who were
negotiating for them on the Act. The local snowmobile club members, a
family reunion group, ranchers, outfitters, all have made presentations
to the SMAC arguing that their use of Steens was guaranteed to continue
unaffected by the Act.
I have sympathy for anyone who feels those representing them back
in 2000 misled them. Some of my constituents can understand where these
folks are coming from because they feel promises to them were broken
also. We could start by talking about cherry-stemmed roads in
wilderness and $5 million in cash bonuses to the ranchers participating
in the land exchanges. How the heck are we supposed to deal with this?
Whose promises do we honor and whose do we ignore?
If BLM were to make decisions based on all the verbal promises
claimed by local users of Steens, they would have nothing to implement.
The SMAC members could all stay home. Since everyone seems to have been
promised nothing would change, the Steens Wilderness and Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management Protection Area would just be names on
a piece of paper in the Congressional Record of 2000, and the Act a
collector's item. Those who have not already done so should get their
copies autographed by their Representative as soon as possible.
The Steens/Alvord Coalition would have never gone along with the
promises the SMAC has heard, and can hardly be expected to go along
with BLM managing based on them now. From the beginning of the
negotiations on Steens, we held to our policy of not going along with
any language or exceptions that would weaken the Wilderness Act or BLM
regulations enforcing them. We were--and are--determined to have the
Steens Mountain Wilderness be an equal member of the National
Wilderness Preservation System.
It is fine for the SMAC to be a used as a sounding board and public
forum to some degree, but if we want to meet the deadline on the Steens
management plan, we need to find a way to avoid spending so much time
on things we can do nothing about. The SMAC does not have the authority
to change laws and regulations. If we recommend BLM take action against
what is in writing--existing laws and regulations--they have no choice
but to ignore us. So to attempt to do so on our part is just a waste of
precious time.
I think the best example of the SMAC exhibiting its cooperative
capabilities was our deliberations regarding the Roaring Springs Ranch
land exchange. We can all thank Skip Renchler for getting these
original land exchanges done in a timely manner. But it wasn't easy,
and BLM needed the SMAC's help.
Roaring Springs Ranch changed their mind about closing a water gap
near Tabor Cabin in the Blitzen Wild and Scenic River. They were going
to pull out of the exchange if the deal was not renegotiated. At the
December meeting, the SMAC wrestled with this issue for a significant
part of two days, eventually working out a solution that enabled the
exchange to proceed.
I wish I could report this type of success on every deliberation.
Unfortunately, we have had instances where, rather than hanging in
there to negotiate a solution at the meeting, a SMAC member held out
and then asked their Representative for help when they went home.
Involvement by all members of the Oregon delegation and Governor
Kitzhaber is more than welcome as far as I am concerned. They all
participated in getting the Act written and passed through Congress.
Interference is different. It may be difficult distinguishing between
the two, and I certainly am not accusing anyone of being inappropriate,
but it is an issue that I hope each Oregon legislator will consider
carefully when the occasion presents itself.
When a legislator contacts BLM, or sends a letter to the SMAC,
saying they should do what a particular SMAC member wants, from where I
sit this feels more like coercion than cooperation. It sends a message
to the SMAC member in question that they don't have to negotiate with
the rest of us like they did on Tabor Cabin; instead they can hold out
for their way or no way, confident their Congressional advocate will
save the day. If we are to repeat the success of Taber Cabin, we all
have to be negotiating in good faith.
Conflicts of interest may also be more of an issue than anyone
thought it would be. Four of the twelve members of the SMAC have direct
financial interests on Steens. The Act intended this, and I am glad
they are fellow members. These folks are the experts in their area of
interest, and they know the history and issues of the area like the
stains on their hats. In short, their input is invaluable to the SMAC
and BLM.
However, since the first rumblings of a Steens National Monument
local folks have feared for the survival of their businesses, and more
importantly, their way of life. I applaud how well these particular
SMAC members have dealt with these concerns (far better than I would
have), but fear is a very difficult emotional base from which try to
think objectively and constructively. As a result, some subjects are
very difficult for us to broach, which could be impacting how efficient
we are in getting things dealt with.
Draft legislation was recently brought before the SMAC, driven by a
trade of U.S. Forest Service property for a Steens inholding. At this
point my constituents have mixed feelings about this legislation, but
the salient point here is that the SMAC deliberation on this matter was
another distraction. It was important for the SMAC to be briefed on the
draft language, but we are an administrative advisory council, not a
legislative one. We could have been working on tasks that are clearly
ours to perform instead of taking votes the BLM had to ignore.
The one section of this legislation that really needs to go forward
involves boundary adjustments that everyone has agreed to (including
the Tabor Cabin deal mentioned earlier). I sincerely hope the Oregon
delegation will consider introducing this section of the bill on its
own, adding to it whatever other items end up having the consolidated
support of all interested parties.
Having said all this, I think we are not terribly far behind, at
least according to the timeline laid out by the Steens management plan
lead, Gary Foulkes, and mostly due to his drive and persistence. If we
can eliminate some of the distractions, and stay more focused going
forward, we will get the job done in time.
Breaking new ground is always more difficult than taking the path
well worn, and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Act definitely breaks new ground. My hope is that the fine
citizens of Harney County, Steens locals, the media, legislators, and
everyone in Oregon who loves the Steens will have some patience, take a
big breath, and give BLM and the SMAC a chance to do their jobs.
Thank you again for inviting me to testify. Regardless of anything
I have said, I like my job on the SMAC. The pay could be better, but
the benefits and the people I work with are great.
Summary of statement:
The BLM has worked hard to implement the Steens Mountain
Cooperative Management and Protection Act. The Steens Mountain Advisory
Council has not accomplished as much as it might due to several
distractions it has had to deal with, but has covered a lot of ground
and had some noteworthy successes.
______
Mr. Walden. Mr. Otley?
STATEMENT OF FRED OTLEY, GRAZING PERMITTEE, DIAMOND, OREGON
Mr. Otley. Thank you for the invitation to be here, as a
backup. I appreciate it. I was hoping Hoyt would be here.
The Steens Act, thanks to all your hard work and untiring
effort, Congressmen Walden, and the other Oregon
representatives and senators, is indeed a precedent-setting Act
that establishes a new type of special designation. One with
its functional purpose--a directive purpose--that's different
from any other Act that we've ever found. It does create a
large wilderness, six wild and scenic rivers, a trout preserve,
a mineral withdrawal area, and a wildlands juniper area.
Economic interests--Private landowners were made a functional
part of the Act. That's also unique and different, it's very
important. Other areas of the west are watching this--I get
phone calls--very, very closely, to see if this type of
collaborative effort, you know, fits in their area--to get past
some of the polarization that's occurred in the other areas of
the west. I think Congressmen Simpson, you made a very good
point on that. We cannot allow a handful of extremists to use
strict interpretation of ``wilderness'' to destroy the balance
in the legislation. We cannot allow the basic, ongoing,
historical activities to spend thousands of dollars to protect
their ongoing use. And that's what these environmental
assessments, in my opinion, have opened us up for.
My testimony will probably run out of time and will
emphasize the functional purposes of the Act--all of them.
There's 13 different purposes. I think, four are directive--not
directive. Four are, basically, establishment purposes. There's
four that are process oriented, like the establishment of
wilderness, scenic rivers, et cetera. The four process purposes
are: Creation of the SMAC--the Advisory Council--nondevelopment
easements, those kinds of things.
There are five remaining directive functional purposes,
that tell us what to do and how to do it, throughout the Steens
Mountain Management Act. And the first five are--The first one
is: Maintain the cultural, economic, ecological, and social
health of the mountain. Number 2--the second one--is Number 5:
To provide for, and expand, cooperative management activities
between public and private landowners. The third one is No. 10:
To maintain and enhance cooperative and innovative management
practices between public and private. The fourth--or, the
fifth--No, the fourth is: To promote viable and sustainable
grazing and recreational operations on private and public land.
The fifth one--the last one--is: To conserve, protect, and
manage, for healthy watersheds and the long-term ecological
integrity of Steens Mountain.
I suggest these primary and functional directive purposes
are balanced and specific to both ecologic, economic, and
social interests. Underneath this umbrella of five directive
purposes, is the purpose of the area--the cooperative area
itself--and it is: To conserve, protect, and manage the long-
term ecological integrity of Steens Mountain for future and
present generations.
To further this purpose--These are very important--There
are five objectives. (1) To maintain an enhance cooperative and
innovative management projects, programs, and agreements
between the tribal, public, and private interests; (2) To
promote--to promote--grazing, recreation, historic, and other
uses that are sustainable; (3) To conserve, protect, and ensure
traditional access to the Burns Paiute Tribe; (4) To ensure the
conservation, protection, and improved management of the
ecological, social, and economic environment; (5) To promote
and foster cooperative communication and understanding, and to
reduce conflict within the area.
Those are very important. And you move on down--Well, of
those, the words ``cooperative'' was used six times, and
``private or economic interests'' are referenced nine times, in
those purposes.
In the next section, Management of Federal Lands--The first
purpose is: The Secretary shall manage all Federal lands in a
manner that ensures the conservation, protection, and improved
management of the ecological, social, and economic environment;
and, (2)--very important one to us--Recognizes and allows
current and historic recreational use. What could be more
clear?
These are all of the directive functional purposes. There
are no others. And, I guess, it kicks down to the Steens
Mountain Running Camp, right off the bat. Why should Harland
spend thousands of dollars protecting his use? I mean, this is
built so strongly and so clearly, in the language there. The
BLM, basically, should say--on all the recreational permits,
and access--If they're going to do an EA, they shouldn't, as a
context of the EA, say, ``This will occur in this way, and will
not be open to public purview. Here's the components of either
the monitoring, to prevent impacts, or some major change in
operations that will come out for an EA.'' But, the basic
operations should not be subject to this.
I'm running out of time, so, I just believe that you've
worked very hard. The snowmobile issue is a critical one. It
ended without being subject to the RMP process. I think it was
incorrect to do that, when the establishment of a trail--a
snowmobile trail area--is consistent with the Act. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Fred.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Otley follows:]
Statement of Fred Otley, Otley Brothers Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee
and thank you for your untiring interest in issues so important to
Harney County and rural areas throughout our nation.
The Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act (the
Steens Act) is a precedent setting Act that creates a new type of
special designation and functional purpose that protects the
environment while maintaining and even enhancing the local economy--a
large wilderness, six wild and scenic rivers, a redband trout preserve,
a mineral withdrawal area and a wildlands juniper area were created
while protecting and enhancing historical and current uses of public
land. Private landowner needs including economic interests were made
part of the purpose and management process to ensure sustainability.
Other areas of the west are all watching the implementation of the
Steens Act as a new way of doing business in rural areas that have
public land. We must be successful.
We cannot allow a handful of extremists to use a strict
interpretation of the wilderness section to destroy the balance in the
legislation. The short term notoriety gain of these individuals will
move to the historical aspect of preventing other areas of west of
going forward with wilderness legislation in future years. The
collaborative process Congress created with the help of many different
environmental and public interests created a management framework that
establishes wilderness that works. Even if it takes Congressional
intervention we must not allow a few individuals to move the Steens
Mountain back to the conflict wilderness model of other areas that pits
one interest against another.
My testimony will emphasize the functional purposes and objectives
of the Steens Mountain Cooperative and Management and Protection Act
relative to important issues. Four of the 13 purposes of the Steens Act
are specific to making the designations of six wild and scenic rivers,
the Redband Trout Reserve, the Steens Mountain Wilderness Area, the
Wildlands Juniper Area and the Cooperative Management and Protection
Area (CMPA). All of the special designations are within the CMPA
boundary. Four of the 13 purposes are process purposes creating the
Steens Mountain Advisory Committee, authorizing land exchanges, land
purchases and non-development easements and authorizing uses consistent
with the Act. The five remaining purposes are functional directive
purposes.
The first directive purpose of the Act was to ``(1) maintain the
cultural, economic, ecological and social health of the Steens Mountain
Area in Harney County, Oregon. The second functional directive purpose
is number (5) to provide for and expand cooperative management
activities between public and private landowners. The third directive
is (10) to maintain and enhance cooperative and innovative management
practices between the public and private land managers in the
Cooperative Management and Protection Area. The fourth is (11) to
promote viable and sustainable grazing and recreation operations on
private and public lands. The fifth and last functional directive
purpose is (12) to conserve, protect, and manage for healthy watersheds
and the long-term ecological integrity of Steens Mountain. I suggest
these primary and functional purposes are balanced and specific to
include ecological, economic and social interests together.
Underneath the umbrella of the previous five directive purposes
(Section 1) of the Steens Act is the purpose in Title I of the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (Section 102) (a)
Purpose--The purpose of the Cooperative Management and Protection Area
is to conserve, protect, and manage the long-term ecological integrity
of Steens Mountain for future and present generations. ``To further the
purpose specified in subsection (a), and consistent with such
purpose,'' are five objectives as follows:
(1) to maintain and enhance cooperative and innovative management
projects, programs and agreements between tribal, public and private
interests in the CMPA;
(2) to promote grazing, recreation, historic, and other uses that
are sustainable;
(3) to conserve, protect and to ensure traditional access to
cultural, gathering, religious, and archaeological sites by the Burns
Paiute Tribe on Federal lands and to promote cooperation with private
landowners;
(4) to ensure the conservation, protection, and improved management
of the ecological, social, and economic environment of the CMPA,
including geological, biological, wildlife, riparian, and scenic
resources; and
(5) to promote and foster cooperation, communication, and
understanding and to reduce conflict between Steens Mountain users and
interests.
Of the eleven directive purposes and objectives and the title of
the Steens Act, the words cooperation or cooperative are used six times
with private or economic interests directly included nine times. We
know of no special designation that has cooperative management as the
title and interwoven into the purposes except the Steens Act. It is
indeed unique, broadly important and established a new way of doing
business on public and private land. People as a functional part of a
designation and management is a unique way of going forward.
In Subtitle B--Management of Federal lands (Section 111. Management
Authorities and Purposes. (a)
(1) and (2)) the above directive purposes are reinforced ``The
Secretary shall manage all Federal lands included in the CMPA, etc, in
a manner that (1) ensures the conservation, protection and improved
management of the ecological, social and economic environment etc, and
(2) recognizes and allows current and historic recreational use. What
could be more clear? Inside and outside the wilderness existing
activities should be allowed to continue as they have in the past
unless specifically prohibited by the Steens Act. The assumption and
baseline of the Bureau of Land Management, other agencies and the Court
system should not assume things must be changed or new standards put in
place, especially on an interim basis.
The first example or issue is a very important test of the
integrity of the Steens Act and that is the Steens Mountain Running
Camp. The 27 year old camp established and operated by Harland Yriarte
operates in a environmental friendly manner with environmental and
cultural education woven into its operation. Elected officials and
others in the negotiation process promised the Camp was not going to be
impacted over and over again. Now, radical outside interests are
threatening to sue and end the camps operation inside the Steens
Mountain Wilderness. Mr. Yriarte may have to spend thousands of dollars
protecting his business interests and the heritage of over five
thousand runners living in all parts of the United States of America.
The seven other recreational permit holders may similarly be impacted.
I believe the Bureau of Land Management erred in putting the Steens
Mountain Running Camp, the other recreation permits, landowner access
to Wilderness inholdings and motorized maintenance of existing grazing
facilities and management in environmental assessments for NEPA
compliance. The decision to open up these issues to NEPA will force
part of these activities to go through NEPA three times before
individual owners, managers or participants will have any confidence in
the security and sustainability of their ongoing operations. The second
time NEPA will be applied is at the Resource Management Plan level and
the third time will be in the issuance of the permits following
completion of the RMP. If NEPA was necessary at this time, and I do not
think it is, then the environmental assessment should have been limited
to monitoring of the activities relative to permanent physical
impairment of the resource.
I go back to the directive purposes of the Steens Act including
Section 111 that ``recognizes and allows current and historical
recreational use.'' Then why are the historical and current snowmobile
use areas closed after the passage of the Act? BLM interpreted Section
112 (b) (1) ``Prohibition.-The use of motorized or mechanized vehicles
on Federal Lands included in the Cooperative Management and Protection
Area--(A) is prohibited off road. They should have allowed snowmobile
use to continue by adhering to the following section ``(B) is limited
to such roads and trails as may be designated for their use as part of
the management plan.'' Section 111 allows the use to continue pending
the development of the plan. The existing use area must be considered a
over snow activity therefore not subject to Section 112 or become a
designated snowmobile trail. Either way the use is legal under the
Steens Act.
Fear of being sued should have not dictated interim management and
public use. Where the State BLM Office or their Solicitor moved us to
changing or ending ongoing activities, they caused a lot of conflict
and problems with effective implementation and time lost by the Steens
Mountain Advisory Committee helping BLM work on the RMP. Congressional
intervention may be necessary to get back to the intent of the Steens
Act.
The cooperative management emphasis of the Steens Act became
reality because it is part of the heritage and culture of the area with
45 different private/public partnerships identified at the time of the
Steens Act passing Congress. If we go forward with that cooperative
spirit then the existing permit holders and landowners can greatly
assist in the implementation of necessary changes and education of the
public. When someone unknowingly violates the law or use requirements
of the area, the educational information can be provided without the
involvement of law enforcement officials and citations in the majority
of violations.
At the same time I am critical and disagree with the decisions the
Bureau of Land Management has made concerning opening up certain issues
to NEPA at this time, I compliment the leadership and the majority of
BLM staff at the local level. Public/private cooperative management
efforts have continued including ecological/prescribed fire efforts.
Local BLM managers and staff worked very hard and did a good job in
completing very complex land exchanges and implementation project
plans. Overall management efforts continue to be good and progressively
implemented and not stalled out during the transition. I compliment Tom
Dyer, Miles Brown, Jim Buchanan, Skip Renchler and others for their
efforts.
Many positive aspects of the Steens Act are new and different from
the old way of doing business. In some cases BLM does not know how to
deal with certain parts of the Act because existing policy and
structure does not facilitate or conform to these sections. Financial
incentives, cooperative agreements with landowners, and non-development
easements are several areas of confusion. The emphasis of land
exchanges to avoid future wilderness conflicts also needs to go
forward. I support funding of non-development easements at this time to
begin and allow the SMAC, BLM, landowners and others work out the
negotiation process and procedures to implement non-development
easements. I support a number of boundary adjustment and proposed land
exchanges although there is language in the proposed bill that would
need to be changed. The legislation would also need to grandfather in
the Steens Mountain Running Camp and the other recreation permits and
make reasonable access to ones property unconditional for the full use
and enjoyment for property owners. NEPA and permits concerning access
should apply to major upgrades that substantially and visibly alter
access routes.
In summary, outside parties threatening existing uses have shaken
the support and implementation of the Steens Act. I worry that if we do
not fix the above issues legislatively, the whole Steens process will
be polarized and stalled before we can fully enlist the cooperative
spirit in the Act. The directive purposes of the Steens Act are very
specific and clear. Thank you for consideration of my comments.
______
Mr. Walden. I want to follow up on something you were
saying just then, because this whole issue of access still
sticks in my craw a bit. Because we also put language in there
to say ``Nothing in this Act is intended to affect rights or
interests in real property or supersede State law.'' It would
seem to me that--And, I'm not a lawyer. Usually when I say
that, I get applause.
[Applause.]
It's OK. Lindsay is a lawyer, and a pretty good one.
[Laughter.]
But, I guess my point is that--kind of getting at your
issue, too--We tried to write this to protect the historical
uses. We tried to write it in a way, as clearly as we could, to
protect real property rights, including access to that
property. So, it's not really a question, Fred, but we tried to
do our best, in that respect.
Mr. Sutherland, I noticed in your prepared testimony, you
made a number of different comments. But one of them that
really stuck out at me was--and I'm quoting now, from page 4--
``Some of my constituents can understand where these folks are
coming from, because they feel promises to them were broken
also.'' Could you give me some examples of those promises, that
they feel were broken?
Mr. Sutherland. To wilderness activists--and I include
myself, as one of those--Cherry stems are an anathema. And,
most--Because everything was kept very tightly controlled, due
to the speed of this process, the maps were not shown to very
many people.
Mr. Walden. They were on the Web site, and they were in the
newspaper.
Mr. Sutherland. Not prior to the legislation.
Mr. Walden. Yes. During that whole process.
Mr. Sutherland. My remembrance, and those who are concerned
about it, remember that it was--Well, the cherry stems aren't
mentioned in the legislation.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Sutherland. The only way you find out they exist, is by
going to the map and looking at the fact that the color of the
cherry stems is the same as the boundary of the wilderness.
There's nothing on the map that says, ``These are cherry stems.
You can drive into the wilderness, in these areas.'' So, even
if the person knew those maps were there--which, I evidently
didn't--the--You really have to work to figure out that they
existed. So, a lot of people felt like that was a broken
promise on their part.
Mr. Walden. But doesn't that presume that somebody promised
there would be no cherry stems, and you had people in these
discussions, didn't you?
Mr. Sutherland. Throughout the Steens legislation, on the
Coalition side of things, the instructions given to those who
were negotiating, was that there--that we would be going by the
Wilderness Act. There would be no new exceptions or exemptions
in the wilderness regulations.
Mr. Walden. Except for the cow-free wilderness.
Mr. Sutherland. Well, in the cow-free--Cows were
grandfathered at Wayne Espinall's insistence, during the
Steens--the Wilderness Act, as a nonconforming use. So, we
don't have anything to say about that. I think, to put it in
the same category as weakening wilderness regulations or
values, is a different sort of thing. But--That was a change
that was made, but it was not a weakening of the Wilderness
Act, which is the instruction our negotiators were always
under.
Mr. Walden. Are there any other broken promises you could
delineate?
Mr. Sutherland. I think people who were on the outside of
it, who--When you add up--When you try to figure out the $5
million that was paid to move the cows out of the wilderness,
it's very difficult to figure out that money. If you put
together the report, from the BLM Web site, and sit down and
work over the legislation itself, where it's covered there, you
could finally build an Excel spreadsheet that figures the whole
thing out. But it was, again, very difficult for outsiders to
know what was going on, and I think there are constituents of
mine who feel like that $5 million was not in proper form.
Mr. Walden. So, if you had had your way, your negotiators
would have opposed those payments and the cherry stems?
Mr. Sutherland. I think a lot of the promises that people
have claimed here, or from Harney County, are not supported by
everybody that was negotiating for the locals. And I am not
saying that everybody that I personally, or--
Mr. Walden. That wasn't my question. My question was: If
you were the negotiator, representing the Sierra Club in those
negotiations, would you have said ``No'' to the bill, based on
those two points you've raised?
Mr. Sutherland. I don't know about that. I would weigh lots
of different things. But I would say that I would have made a
much bigger--I would have certainly brought up the problems
that I just mentioned.
Mr. Walden. OK. In your testimony, you mentioned the
concerns you had with BLM ``micromanaging'' the Steens
Cooperative Management Area. Do you believe completing
environmental assessments for every pre-existing activity is
also an example of micromanaging, by the BLM?
Mr. Sutherland. I was referring to the SMAC micromanaging
BLM's actions.
Mr. Walden. OK. But, is an EA, on every pre-existing
activity, from your perspective, any kind of micromanometer of
what's going on, on the mountain?
Mr. Sutherland. I'm not--BLM needs to do what they feel
they need to do. I'm not making a comment on that.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Sutherland. But, personally, if you want to ask whether
I think the EA's are needed, the answer is ``Yes.''.
Mr. Walden. OK. If Congress sees fit to do some technical
corrections to the original Steens legislation, do you think we
should run those proposed corrections past the SMAC, for input?
Mr. Sutherland. If you're asking for legislative advice,
no.
Mr. Walden. So, it's your opinion that the SMAC should be
gagged from giving advice on any proposed changes that may
require legislative approval?
Mr. Sutherland. I think it's appropriate for the SMAC--for
each member, as a representative of their constituents--to give
feedback, to you or whoever else wants it. If you want one spot
to go, to get feedback, from a lot of different groups--That's
what happened at our last meeting, in discussions about this
legislation. We took no votes. We didn't make reservations. We
just provided feedback. I think that is very appropriate.
Mr. Walden. So, if we have--As we work forward on various
things that may come up--I want to make sure I heard you right.
If we could run these past the Committee, to at least get
feedback, that would be acceptable? But not a vote?
Mr. Sutherland. Correct. And not as a substitute for
talking to all the interested parties.
Mr. Walden. Oh, I understand that. But it's also a pretty
good representative group. A question: As the Sierra Club
spokesperson today--What is your view of Wilderness Watch's
objection to the Running Camp's permit and activities on the
mountain? Do you support the running camp continuing to
operate, as it has been, on the mountain?
Mr. Sutherland. The Sierra Club--not speaking for myself--
But, the High Desert Committee of the Sierra Club, who has
talked about this, feels that it is appropriate for Harland to
make changes.
Mr. Walden. What kind of changes do they feel is
appropriate?
Mr. Sutherland. That's what we're doing--Well, that's what
we need to be doing in the EA, and get it out there and start
looking at what BLM has proposed.
Mr. Walden. Jill Workman was involved in the discussions of
the original legislation. She chaired the Steens-Alvord
Coalition. Was she representing the Sierra Club, as well,
during those negotiations?
Mr. Sutherland. Yes.
Mr. Walden. If you'd gotten the e-mail I referenced,
earlier, from her, saying that the running camp is ``benign''--
Basically, as you read it, you're left with the impression--You
can't imagine why anybody would question this, because we want
it to continue. Am I missing something here?
[Laughter.]
Or, has there been a change?
Mr. Sutherland. Well, with all due respect, I think there
is something missing.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Sutherland. And not just to you. When--The reason--The
tone for that letter, and the tone of all the other letters
that are being submitted, is that of: ``We don't understand
what's the problem. Why are you bringing it up to us?'' That's
the crux of the issue. No one understood the problem, because
they were not given the correct information.
Mr. Walden. What information did they lack?
Mr. Sutherland. The information that was given to--When I
heard about the running camp, personally, by way of someone
complaining about running into them at BLM, and then, somebody
else I met--I checked into it. And the range of numbers that
came from all the negotiators on our side, who had originally
been involved, ranged from 15 to 30. And some of these e-mails
said, ``Gee, I know we're going to have to make some
adjustments here, because most wilderness will only allow 12
people in a group. But, we've got up to 30 in this group. How
are we going to deal with that?'' And the assumption was made
that Harland would make some adjustments to deal with that. If
anybody had known that there were 150 kids, plus 30 staff, for
a total of 180, running in one line--in a mass--then that
letter would not have been written.
Mr. Walden. I want to just shoot across the table here to
the BLM. When Harland has a permit on file, does it specify how
many--Can you come up and answer, for the record, please?
Miles? Does the permit that Harlan has, have to specify how
many runners there are?
Mr. Brown. Yes. He submits a plan of operation that
describes that.
Mr. Walden. How many years has he submitted that plan, and
had it approved?
Mr. Brown. He's got a 5-year permit now. That's what I'm
familiar with. But he's been under--I don't know exactly how
long he's been under permit, but he's been under permit since
I've been here, for 6 years.
Mr. Walden. And are you in charge of that permit? You
authorized that permit?
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Walden. Do you have access to people--Do people come in
and ask to see these sorts of permits?
Mr. Brown. Not often, no.
Mr. Walden. Has anyone ever come in and asked to see
Harland's permit?
Mr. Brown. Not that I'm aware of. Other than Harland.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. It's his permit. I guess the point I'm getting
to--This is the public document, is it not?
Mr. Brown. Yes, it is.
Mr. Walden. So, anybody that could have wanted to figure
out how many runners were authorized, could have either (a)
asked Harland, or (b) asked the BLM, if they didn't want to go
to Harland; right?
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Mr. Walden. And, to your knowledge, nobody's ever asked--
come in and asked the BLM? To your knowledge?
Mr. Brown. No. In fact, we tried to do a record search on
that, to see if it ever came up, in a series of meetings. And
the issue never came up, as to the numbers.
Mr. Walden. Has there ever been a formal complaint filed
against Harland's operation?
Mr. Brown. There hasn't been a formal complaint. The only
thing that I'm aware of is: On the trail register, someone was
surprised to see that many runners. At the head of the trail,
there's a register where people sign in, and someone said,
``Gee, I was surprised to see that many people.'' But that's
the only concern I've ever seen in writing.
Mr. Walden. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm
just trying to sort out how this permit system works. I've got
to tell you, Mr. Sutherland, as I read Jill's e-mail, and as we
went through crafting the legislation, I was sure left with the
opinion that people she was representing had no problem with
this running camp. Her words are ``benign.''.
Mr. Sutherland. I will answer by saying: The people I've
talked to, including Jill, on our side of the table, said,
``The issue was off the scope.'' That is, that one e-mail is
about the only discussion on that, that ever occurred. It
wasn't--Except for one person, who said that there was, at the
end of the negotiations, a request to put Harland's camp
specifically in the legislation, and that that was not
allowed--that the negotiators said that Harland's camp needed
to live up to whatever regulations everybody else did. Now,
maybe Lindsay was the one that made that request. I don't know.
Mr. Walden. Yes, he was more involved in these discussions.
Mr. Sutherland. But, I'll tell you that this was from Andy
Kerr, who said that Harland's camp has specifically been asked,
on behalf of someone, to be grandfathered into the legislation
by name, and that that request was denied.
Mr. Walden. What I'm being told is that it wasn't denied,
but it wasn't pursued because this e-mail kind of answered
that. And, again, quoting from this e-mail of August 24th, Jill
says, ``I'm hopeful that addressing this matter now will keep
the running camp from becoming an issue, as we attempt to move
forward with consensus legislation. Please call me if you have
any questions about the coalition's position on the running
camp, or if you believe it would be helpful for a Coalition
member to discuss this matter with the camp's owner, or a
person receiving a letter from the camper. We appreciate your
time and intention to working toward consensus legislation''--
Et cetera, et cetera--``See you in September.'' So, now,
irrespective of this letter, Sierra Club's position is that
changes need to be made to the way Harland runs his camp? Would
one of those changes be that they shouldn't run in the
wilderness areas?
Mr. Sutherland. Well, the only thing of concern is the
wilderness.
Mr. Walden. Would one of the concerns be then--Would it be
the position of the Sierra Club to oppose kids running in the
wilderness area, as currently occurs under Harland's permit?
Mr. Sutherland. I would say that--that--Yes. The way they
run right now in the wilderness, is inappropriate for
wilderness. It's an inappropriate activity for wilderness, and
needs to be looked at.
Mr. Walden. So, is your organization, then, working at all
or having any communication with Wilderness Watch, on their
effort?
Mr. Sutherland. No. There's no effort that I know of, on
anybody's part. We're waiting for the EA to come out, to look
at it. My understanding of Wilderness Watch's position is that
they should not be in the wilderness. Now, that's just, you
know, what I've heard.
Mr. Walden. So, you're not working with them or talking to
them, or none of that?
Mr. Sutherland. No. My--Our position is that the kids need
to stay on the mountain. And it's the same position the
Wilderness Watch has. The Wilderness Watch is not asking that
Harland's running camp is off the mountain. They want them on
the mountain. They want them to continue operating. The issue
is: Whether it's appropriate in the manner it already is
running in the wilderness. And I, personally, believe that
there are lots of options, to have the operation be just as
exciting for the kids and to give them the same benefits
they've always had, without violating the wilderness experience
for other people who are up there now, for that experience.
Mr. Walden. How often--Do you know, now, how many kids go
through, and how often?
Mr. Sutherland. How many of Harland's kids?
Mr. Walden. Yeah. Kids in the running camp go through, and
how often that occurs?
Mr. Sutherland. He has two camps, plus the football camp.
The running kids--The running camp part is, I think--Each of
them--Each one is 2 weeks. And, I believe, it's 150 kids, with
30 staff.
Mr. Walden. And they go through the wilderness area one
time, I believe.
Mr. Sutherland. They go through the gorges--both gorges, as
I understand it--Harland can correct me--on the same day.
Mr. Walden. Is that correct, Harland? Why don't you come up
to the table, and we'll get this on the record.
Mr. Yriarte.: I love you, Jerry.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. I'm glad you can both dress in green shirts,
too.
Mr. Sutherland. Except the word that he would probably,
somewhat, use to describe me, starts with ``B,'' but it's not
``Basque.''.
Mr. Yriarte. I didn't know what your middle initial was,
Jerry.
Mr. Walden. All right. Let's start over here.
[Laughter.]
How many kids go through the camp? How important is it to
get in the wilderness area? I read your testimony about
lightening, and--You know, you even had a driver who was struck
and killed, I understand.
Mr. Yriarte. Yes. We have approximately 150 a week, for the
2 weeks. On a Tuesday, for about 8 to 10 hours, depending on
what kind of shape somebody's in--and, if it happens to be me,
maybe it's a little longer than that--But, yes, on every
Tuesday, for each Tuesday, it's 150, plus about 30 staff.
There's about 40 staff, total, in our camp, but people like,
you know, Pete Reynolds, our cook, doesn't go on that day.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Yriarte. So, how important is it to get in the
wilderness? Yes. You've got to remember--We've been up there
for 27 years. This will be 28. Approximately 1975 to current.
We've had a lot of time. We've been through every canyon, every
gorge, with a variety of different people--variety of different
shapes. We get kids from Stanford up there and the University
of Oregon. We've had semi-Olympians, and so forth. We have been
able to--How would you say--find the best routes, during that
26 years. And what is the bottom line? Scenic and safe. And we
go through Big Indian, right now--Takes about four--four or 5
hours. We don't camp. We leave no trace. As a matter-of-fact,
we pick up everybody else's trash, that seems to be--that seems
to be found there every once in awhile. It takes about another
four to 6 hours to get up Blitzen, and then, out to the top and
on the way home. But, it is definitely--We believe that you
become what you surround yourself with. There's a reason that
that's wilderness. Why isn't it wilderness down here, in the
flatlands between Burns and Bend. If you want solitude, that's
a great place to get it.
Laughter.]
So, did I answer your question?
Mr. Walden. We're going to take this one on the road, I
think.
[Laughter.]
Yes, you answered my question. I appreciate it.
Mr. Otley. May I say something here?
Mr. Walden. Yes. Go ahead. Thank you. Save us here.
Mr. Otley. Well, it's my understanding that uses are
managed in each wilderness area somewhat differently, and there
is no specific policy or regulation limiting the number of
visitors, per say--and there's lots of different ways in the
wilderness to do it. But, I'm not expert on wilderness. But,
back to the legislation. Under Subtitle (b), Management of
Federal Lands--and this is in the Cooperative Management and
Protection Area, of which the wilderness is inside that
boundary. It says, ``Ensures the conservation, protection, and
improved management of the ecological, social, and economic
environment.'' Harland fits there. Number (2)--It's very, very,
very specific--(2)--and this is the last one, under Management
of Federal Lands--``Recognizes and allows current and historic
recreational use.'' Subtitle B, Management of Federal Lands,
Section 111, Management Authorities and Purposes of Management
of Federal Lands, within the Cooperative Management in the
Protectionary Boundary.
Mr. Sutherland. If I may add, maybe, some clarifications?
Mr. Walden. Sure.
Mr. Sutherland. I think--and this is, Representative
Simpson--I think it's worthwhile to note that many of us would
disagree--and Representative Walden--that any wilderness is not
like another. The Wilderness Act established a national
wilderness preservation system. It was key to that provision,
that all wildernesses become part of one family, when they're
enacted. Yes, there are exemptions, written into specific Acts.
But the--In entirety, they are to be part of the whole. And so,
immediately, when the wilderness legislation went into effect,
the BLM needed to be legislating for that. And it comes with
its own set of rules and regulations, separate from anything
outside the wilderness. So, the discretionary aspect is much
lower. Now, in terms of Harland's case--Yes, the number of
visitors are not established, but there aren't any of them out
there with more than 15 or 20 in a group. So, this is--This is
truly a unique situation that we have to deal with. We should
have dealt with it before the legislation passed.
Mr. Walden. But you see, Mr. Sutherland, we thought we had
dealt with it before the legislation passed. We had an e-mail
from Jill Workman, that says this is a benign activity. I can't
help what she knew or didn't know at the time. I don't know.
Beyond that, are you familiar with any other wilderness area in
America that allows for-profit groups to run people through
wilderness?
Mr. Sutherland. For-profit is not the issue, but, yes,
there are.
Mr. Walden. So, this isn't necessarily unique to Steens
Mountain, then, is it? It already exists.
Mr. Sutherland. The size is what's unique.
Mr. Walden. Well, what about the Western States 100 race,
that's allowed nearly 400 runners and 1300 volunteers to go to
the Granite Chief wilderness area, in California area, for the
past 20 years?
Mr. Sutherland. That group--When the Desert Protection Act,
in California--No, I'm sorry. The California Wilderness Act--
passed in 1984, that group had an environmental analysis done
on them. That use was ended, per a discussion with the forestry
person who dealt with that at the time. That was--He gave the
parties 3 years to find an alternative route to go. They could
not do so, so he engaged the restriction. The decision was
appealed to the Regional Forester. The Regional Forester
stated--supported--I think it's the Truckee office--in their
decision. Eventually, it went to the national office, and,
eventually, Chief Forest--The Chief Forester came down on the
side of the Western States run. So, when I asked--So, that was
all an administrative process. And, if we want to go through
that here, that's what we're doing. So, I think it's
appropriate.
Mr. Walden. But that's not the question. The question is:
You were talking about these wildernesses that need to be the
same. There needs to be this consistency. And yet, we have
examples where bigger groups than what Harland's got, have gone
through a process and are allowed to run in these wilderness.
Mr. Sutherland. The procedures need to be the same. And I
agree that the same procedure that was done with Western States
need to be done here. And, if this EA comes out in favor of it,
then, that's the proper process.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Sutherland. The only thing that is specific in the
legislation is Section 115. Special-use Permits. That's what
we're talking about. ``The Secretary may renew a special-
recreation permit, applicable to the lands included in the
wilderness area''--So, it's specific to wilderness--``to the
extent that the Secretary determines that permit is consistent
with the Wilderness Act. If renewal is not consistent with the
Wilderness Act, the Secretary shall seek other opportunities
for the permit holder through modifications of the permit, to
realize historic permit use, to the extent that the use is
consistent with the Wilderness Act and this Act.'' So, the only
thing that's in the Act, that specifically addresses Harland,
is a statement that we will allow it, if it meets the
Wilderness Act. If it doesn't--
Mr. Walden. Do you think it's possible that, because of
Jill Workman's e-mail, representing the Steens-Alvord
Coalition, that any further discussion cease, on being specific
about Harland, or any other recreation permit holder? Wouldn't
you think that's a possibility that could occurred here?
Mr. Sutherland. All I say is that Andy Kerr said that the
request was made and he denied it. He didn't say it was
``dropped.'' He said it was--That request was ``denied.''.
Mr. Walden. Request to do what?
Mr. Sutherland. To grandfather Harland's case into the
legislation, at which time he--The negotiators on our side
said, ``We will not allow that.'' We didn't see a problem with
the camp, because nobody knew of the numbers, but if there was,
then he needed to meet up--meet up with the specifications of
anybody else.
Mr. Walden. Harland? Do have any--It's your camp we're
fighting over here.
Mr. Yriarte. Actually, it's the kids' camp. Yeah. It seems
like smart, intelligent men, who have great memories--who have
all the faculties that you would think that people in this
situation do--have access to BLM reports. Yes, I do give a
report each and every year. As a matter of fact, I even break
it down by gender, sex, et cetera, and give them a particular
fee for the number of people that actually came through. In it,
is the total, each and every year, that has been for the last
so-many-years, since--I think 1982 was when I first got a
permit. As far as the Andy Kerr thing--I don't know anything
about that. Where that came from, I couldn't tell you. So, I
don't know. It certainly wasn't me.
Mr. Walden. All right. I'm going to stop--I appreciate
your--all of your comments, and turn it over to Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, I think. I don't know. I listen to
this and get a little p.o.'d. Pardon me. That's an Idaho term.
[Laughter.]
When I'm working on wilderness and stuff, Jerry, and a
group sends an e-mail like this--as we're trying to work in
this collaborative effort, that everybody agrees is a good
idea, trying to work some of these things out, instead of
mandating them--and then, after things are put into the
legislative process and passed--Why should they ever believe
anything that's ever worked out in the collaborative effort,
when you, all of a sudden, come back and deny everything that's
written in this letter? Or, at least, say, ``Well, gee, we just
didn't know about it.'' Let me ask you: Is Jill still working
for you?
Mr. Sutherland. Jill and I are--We're all volunteers. We
don't work for anybody.
Mr. Simpson. But, does she still volunteer with you?
Mr. Sutherland. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Because, if she actually wrote this letter--
this e-mail--and now your comment is--She says they gave,
really, tacit approval to this--In fact, she comments in here
that ``Please call me, if you have any questions about the
Coalition's position on the running camp, or if you believe it
would helpful for a Coalition member to discuss this matter
with the camp's owner, or person receiving a letter from a
camper.'' Essentially, saying that ``We're going to explain our
position here. We don't have a problem with this.'' And then,
all of a sudden--And she says this without knowing anything
about the camp? How am I supposed to believe this?
Mr. Sutherland. Well, I would suggest it was the burden of
the proponents of the camp to give the information, not the
burden of those who are writing the response. If I have agreed
to something--If I have agreed to a contract that was based on
false or lack of information, then I don't feel like I have the
right to live up to that agreement, when that information is
then found out to have been false, that it was based on.
Mr. Simpson. And we're sure that somebody gave them false
information?
Mr. Sutherland. Well, Harland didn't, because he wasn't
involved. And that would have been very good for him to be
involved in some of these discussions. Like I said, this isn't
just Jill. Everyone I talked to, that was involved in these
discussions on our side of the table, agreed--This wasn't just
Jill--Everybody understood this camp to be a very small number
of kids, and did not understand what the issue was, thus they
were not exploring or getting into it any deeper than they did.
Mr. Simpson. I know I always agree to things when I don't
understand what they are. Would it be better if these kids ran
through there in bare feet? Would they do less damage to the
wilderness?
Mr. Sutherland. I don't think the issue here--There are
both--In wilderness, you have to consider both biophysical and
social impacts. And the camp is involved with both. Burns BLM
office has photographs of a meadow at the top of Big Indian,
before and after the kids went through last year, where there
was a trail after they went through, that did not exist prior
to them going through. The trail in the canyon is intermittent.
It is not a well-established--I mean, he knows where it goes,
and all the kids do, but it's not a well-established trail.
They used flagging, as a result, to try to keep them on track.
So, without a well-established trail, there obviously are some
impacts being made, creating trails that weren't there at least
15 minutes earlier. So, there's some biophysical aspect to
this.
But, in wilderness, you also have to consider the other
users that are down there for the wilderness experience,
expecting to have some peace and quiet, and a way to get away
from the city. Last year, it was--One of the people I talked to
said that the kids ran--were yelling while they ran by. It took
them--One group took a half-hour. The other group took an hour
to get by, depending on where they are on the trip. So, these
hikers, or people, need to pull off the trail, for that half-
hour to an hour, as the kids go by. If--These folks have
traveled from a long distance away, to have an experience in
the new wilderness, and part of that expectation, now, is that
it's going to be quiet and serene, and away from the busy city
life that they're trying to get away from--that people in
Harney County take for granted--Then, to run into a group of
kids of that size is a big impact to them. And we need to
consider those folks. And that's a social impact, not a
biophysical one.
Mr. Simpson. Is it more important to consider those people
from that area, and the fact that they may have been disturbed
in their 2-week wilderness experience for half-hour or an hour,
or the fact that it has had an impact on these kids and what
they do, and the fact that they live here, and so forth?
Mr. Sutherland. That decision is part of what the EA
addresses, and is the appropriate procedure under wilderness
regulations.
Mr. Simpson. It's similar to the letter that I got from a
lady who came from New York, who floated the middle fork of the
Salmon River. She spent, I think, a week on it. She wrote me
and said she'd never come back to Idaho, because during her
float trip down the Salmon River, as they went around one bend
on the Salmon River, she looked back up there, and she actually
saw another boat. Destroyed her whole wilderness experience.
[Laughter.]
The arrogance of that kind of attitude is what destroys
trying to solve any of these problems.
[Applause.]
You mentioned one of the things that needs to stop
happening is people who disagree with some of the decisions
being made seeking congressional intervention or influence. Is
there a difference between seeking congressional influence,
than seeking influence through the threat of lawsuits?
Mr. Sutherland. Actually, I didn't say that there should
not be congressional influence. I said that taking that process
slows us down.
Mr. Simpson. Does the threat of a lawsuit slow you down?
Mr. Sutherland. Not the SMAC. I was speaking of the SMAC's
deliberations.
Mr. Simpson. Does the threat of a lawsuit slow the BLM
down, in making a decision?
Mr. Sutherland. It slows down the procedure of implementing
the decision, after it's been made.
Mr. Simpson. Should every decision that a--
Mr. Sutherland. Excuse me, but my discussion was about
slowing down the procedure of getting done with the management
plan, not individual EA's or implementation items.
Mr. Simpson. Should every decision that a Federal agency be
judicable?
Mr. Sutherland. I don't know.
Mr. Simpson. I guess where I'm going with this--I'm, as you
might have guessed from my previous statement--I'm real sick
and tired of management by lawsuits. We do too much of it. And
I'm not just saying the environmentalists. I think both sides
do too much of it. And, somehow, we've got to get to where we
can manage collaboratively, where we can get together, where
reasonable people can sit down and say, ``This is an area we
want to protect. And there are reasonable things that go on
here.'' And come to decisions, and manage them. Without
everybody from Missoula, Montana, or somewhere else deciding
that they want to manage them for us. And I know that they're
public lands, and I know that the public from the East Coast
and every place else has a say in how they're managed. But,
quite frankly, the people who care about the Steens Mountain
live right here. And they're the ones that want to protect
them, more than anybody.
Mr. Sutherland. Well, I would disagree with you, to the
respect that there's a lot of people across Oregon and the
United States that care about the Steens. We were, many of us,
involved in it, and we don't live here. But I understand why
you're saying that, and your feelings.
Mr. Simpson. It's not because I'm here. I say the same
thing in Washington.
Mr. Sutherland. And I think that the Sierra Club--the High
Desert Committee, including Jill and I--have both, over a long
period of time, worked cooperatively with the people here. In
the past, it's always been about grazing issues, because we
didn't have wilderness. And we worked on cooperative--on
working groups--all different things. Jill and I, just
recently--but me, in the past--have offered to sit down with
Harland and try to work this out. And I'm still willing to do
that. That would be our preferred way of handling this. But,
unless the other party wants to come to the table and try to
work things out, then, there's no place else for us to go. We
haven't done anything yet. We're only talking speculatively
about what might happen when this EA comes out. But it is not
anyone's intention, that I know of, to enter into lawsuits.
Mr. Simpson. It--Harland, did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Yriarte.: Cooperation--Cooperation only seems to be
cooperation if it benefits the person who doesn't want you in
the wilderness. And, as far as working it out, all the good
land--Every canyon and every gorge up there that has scenic
beauty, is now wilderness. Basically, if I sit down at the
table with Jerry, the compromise is: I don't go into the
wilderness. So, why would I want to sit down? Other than to
just talk and chat and waste both our time?
Mr. Simpson. And it would seem to me--I have a hard time
getting past what was written here. And, assuming--If I'm
Harland, or if I'm any other group, and somebody writes a
letter like this and says, ``You know, we don't have any
problem with this,'' I'm kind of saying, ``You know, sounds
good to me.'' Maybe if I don't have this type of letter, I'm
saying, ``I'm having nothing to do with this Steens wilderness
stuff, and I'm going to fight it.'' But, because of this, I
say, ``Hey, you know, everybody's being reasonable.'' Now, it
comes back, and we say, ``No. I know. We're weren't told the
truth.''.
Tell me something: Do we have wilderness areas--I'm also, I
guess, interested in this--How--What the intent of the
Wilderness Act is, and so forth. You've created an area here
that's a cow-free area. First one I understand, that's cow-free
area and a wilderness area; is that right?
Mr. Yriarte. And the first kid-free wilderness area.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sutherland. Technically, I think the cow-free area is
coincident with the wilderness area, whatever technical mumbo-
jumbo that means. But I think there is a distinction there. I
think most of us think that the public paid a lot--paid enough
for that. $5 million was a lot of money to spend, and that was
the deal made.
Mr. Simpson. But it is the first, unique cow-free--
Mr. Sutherland. Yes. And it was one of the things was
attractive to us, as ranchers.
Mr. Simpson. So, it was different than what was
contemplated in what--the '64 Wilderness Act, or what that year
was?
Mr. Sutherland. Oh, well, no. Howard Zanizer, and all the
folks involved in the Wilderness Act, fought very--Part of the
reason it took 8 years, was because they were always up against
Chairman Aspinall, who insisted grazing continue. But, they
weren't for grazing to continue. The went along with it,
finally, to make it happen.
Mr. Simpson. But that's what the law was.
Mr. Sutherland. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. I know I'm from Idaho, but I know backtracking
when I see it. Do we have wilderness areas that have dams in
them?
Mr. Sutherland. I don't know.
Mr. Simpson. We do. Just for your purposes, in California.
Do we have areas that have roads in them? Wilderness areas that
have roads in them?
Mr. Sutherland. Cherry stems? Yes.
Mr. Simpson. I mean, roads within the wilderness area? That
are actually part of the wilderness boundary?
Mr. Sutherland. I don't know. All I know is cherry stems.
Mr. Simpson. We do. Do we have wilderness areas that have
buildings in them? Actual buildings? Man-made buildings, as a
matter of fact?
Mr. Sutherland. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Do we have environmental organizations which
actually seek permits to have large groups of--large is--have
groups of individuals be able to use the wilderness area for
educational purposes, on the value of wilderness?
Mr. Sutherland. I don't know.
Mr. Simpson. We do. They testify before Congress, asking
for the right to have those permits and most have been granted
without any review at all. As I said earlier, Congress has
exemptions to wilderness areas in almost every Wilderness Act
it has passed.
Mr. Sutherland. And, if Harland's was in there, we would
have--We would honor it. And maybe that will be necessary--to
have legislation to correct that.
Mr. Simpson. And you won't fight that legislation; is that
correct?
Mr. Sutherland. I'm not going to say that.
Mr. Simpson. Ah.
[Laughter.]
Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony, and I--
You know, as I sit here, and I look at what Congressman Walden
and my Chief of Staff, Lindsay, and others tried to create
here--and I think have done a great job--We are truly trying to
develop a way that we can solve some problems, and I'm having a
hard time believing that we are fighting over some of the
things we're fighting over here. It just baffles me, and it
makes me wonder if we're ever going to come to any resolution
on this stuff. And I am just frustrated as hell--as heck.
That's another Idaho term, excuse me.
[Laughter.]
It makes me wonder why I even want to get involved in
wilderness in Idaho. I would just say ``To heck with it,'' if I
thought this was how was it going to end up. And it will also
make me question, and make him sign in blood, if I ever get an
e-mail saying they agree to something.
I appreciate your testimony. Thank you for being here
today.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. I've just got to follow up--We've
got to wrap this up, because we have to be airborne by 4:15,
back out at the Roaring Springs strip.
But, what I'm told is that when the issue of including
Harland's camps--specifically, when that legislation was
raised, it was contentious. And that Andy, and others, opposed
that. And rather than continuing that contentiousness, it was
this e-mail that was supposedly to put the issue to rest. Now,
I know you can't answer that. But one of the negotiators back
here was in those meetings and tells me that's happened, and I
trust Lindsay. I trust my eyes, although they're not as good as
they used to be. But, I guess what is extraordinary to me is--
If somebody didn't know--If they were incompetent, and yet, put
their name to this, that's not my fault, is it? It's an error
and omission on her end, because she had the right to ask. You
had the right to go ask. I had the right to go ask BLM, and get
an answer. The bottom line is: If Harland's camp was that big
of a problem, how come nobody knew about it?
Mr. Davies. I've got to say something.
[Laughter.]
I can't stand not to. Two reasons: No. 1, it's scaring me
to death that we're having this debate, because another hotly
contested issue is the aircraft. Aircraft are critical for
wildlife and livestock management in the area, and we did not
address it in the legislation either, for the same reason,
either. We had an e-mail just like that.
Mr. Walden. From whom?
Mr. Davies. From Jill, unfortunately.
Mr. Walden. As chairman of the Steens-Alvord Coalition?
Mr. Davies. Yeah. And so, we did--And the contentiousness
over whether to isolate the running camp, as an exception in
the wilderness area--It was contentious only because we did not
want to micromanage through legislation, and highlight
individual items and things, legislatively. We did it with
language that was encompassing and, we felt, clear-cut.
Mr. Walden. And you were in those discussions, weren't you?
Mr. Davies. Yes. And so, if we put Harland's running camp
in there, then we had to put all eight of the original
permittees in there. So, then that sets a precedent. So, then
you list all the grazing permittees, and you list every
individual activity, and the documents would be 5000 pages
long.
Mr. Walden. So, these e-mails played a major role in your
decisionmaking process?
Mr. Davies. We dealt with it in a--Yes, they did. Rather
than go item by item by item, and putting exemptions in and
making fickle legislative deals, we dealt with it with
``historical use,'' ``reasonable use''--that type of language.
I'm not an attorney, and it's getting me in trouble, but I'm a
reasonable person and I can read and understand the Webster
dictionary. So, that's the reason that the language was used,
instead of specific examples.
Mr. Walden. Well, maybe we ought to get on the record right
now, the issue of the aircraft.
Mr. Davies. Well, I don't know if I want to.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. All right. Let's not go there today. We may get
a different answer.
Mr. Davies. But, I guess I bring it up as another example
of items that were left out of the legislation as exemptions,
as detailed information, and we dealt with, with broad scope
information. And that's the whole context of that.
Mr. Walden. Let me move to an issue, and then I've got to
wrap this up, but an issue that, hopefully, we can all agree
on, and that is this issue of resolving some boundary
questions. Would it be this panel's agreement that we might use
a GPS system to come in and try and identify precisely where
those boundaries are, Stacy?
Mr. Davies. Its primarily the livestock-free boundary, and
actually, as Jerry--And there's some boundary adjustments on
the table, currently, that--as a Coalition--that we have
collaboratively agreed to. It's not a comprehensive list. So, I
would suggest that we instruct the BLM to do that, especially
in the livestock-free boundary--Use a GPS. I expect that net
acreage to be zero change.
Mr. Walden. Right. But you just want to make sure it's
accurate.
Mr. Davies. Well, the literal interpretation of the Act,
and some of some other things that are going on, there's little
areas of cow-free--or, livestock-free that are going to be
grazed. And we don't want to build miles and miles of fence, in
the future, for no reason. And so, it's an issue--It's a
speculative issue, to a certain extent. But we need--there's a
number of boundary adjustments that we know need to be made,
and I think we ought to do it all at once. Just use a GPS and
get an accurate line. I think the net acreage will probably end
up being zero. We'll add and subtract as we go around. It's
something that does need to be done.
Mr. Walden. Jerry, do you have problem with that concept?
Mr. Sutherland. No. Everybody has been pretty much on the
same page, as far as boundary adjustments.
Mr. Walden. Fred, do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Otley. No. Would you put that in writing, Jerry?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sutherland. No, and you can't have it.
Mr. Walden. All right. Let's stop fighting.
[Laughter.]
Is that something you think we can work out, from the
BLM's perspective?
Mr. Brown. Yeah.
Mr. Walden. I'm seeing nodding heads. OK. I've got to cut
it off. I really appreciate all of the people who have
testified today. I think it's been most enlightening, in every
case. I want to invite all the people to stay for the barbecue,
and I want to thank, again, the communities for providing that.
I also want to especially recognize the contributions of the
Burns Paiute Tribe, among others. We also invited them to
testify today, but they chose not to, as did the County. But we
do appreciate their role in crafting this legislation. We
appreciate their representation here, and I want to thank
everybody for attending.
Again, the public record will stay open for 30 days. All of
you, and anyone else out there, has the opportunity to comment
and your comments will be included in what is, obviously, a
very important public record.
Again, I want to thank our Committee staff, and our other
staff, and my colleagues in the Oregon Delegation, especially
Senator Wyden and Senator Smith, and Congressman DeFazio, for
their continuing interest and activity in this area. With that,
Mr. Chairman, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
The following information was submitted for the record:
Burns Paiute Tribe, Burns, Oregon, Statement
submitted for the record
Ekker, TinaMarie, Policy Director, Wilderness
Watch, Missoula, Montana, Statement submitted for the record
Finlayson, Stephen and Stephanie, Burns, Oregon,
Letter submitted for the record
Newspaper article ``Running school unlikely to
present any danger to Steens environment'' submitted for the
record
Runnels, Pete, Burns, Oregon, Letter submitted
for the record
Workman, Jill M., Chair, Steens-Alvord Coalition,
Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Greg Walden
[The statement submitted for the record by the Burns Paiute
Tribe, Burns, Oregon, follows:]
Statement of the Burns Paiute Tribe
By the creation of the Steens Mountain (Tse Tse Ede or ``Cold, Cold
Mountain'') Wilderness Area, an area of traditional aboriginal use by
the Burns Paiute Tribe, the people of the Burns Paiute Tribe choose
neither to have abridged nor to abdicate any of the Traditional
Practices of their people. Further, they do not choose to disavow any
areas of sacred significance within or immediately adjacent to the area
of the Steens Mountains by acceding to the demands of outside interest
groups.
The area of Tse Tse Ede, while it has not been as accessible to
Tribal members over the last 100 years as it was previous to white
contact, Tse Tse Ede over the last 100 year has at least not been
inundated by large numbers of non-Tribal peoples. This has allowed for
some preservation of both the Traditional secular and sacred Values and
Practices important to the lives of the Burns Paiute people and to the
preservation of Tse Tse Ede from acts of desecration.
These concerns were well elaborated by addressing safeguards during
the creation of H.R. 4828, most specifically:
``Sec 4: VALID EXISTING RIGHTS. Nothing in this Act shall effect
any valid existing right.''
``Sec 5: PROTECTION OF TRIBAL RIGHTS. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to diminish the rights of any Indian tribe. Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to diminish tribal rights, including those of
the Burns Paiute Tribe regarding access to Federal lands for tribal
activities, including spiritual, cultural, and traditional food
gathering activities.''
``TITLE 1--STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
AREA, Subtitle A--Designation and Purposes. Sec 102. PURPOSE AND
OBJECTIVES OF COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA (b) OBJECTIVES
(1) to maintain and enhance cooperative and innovative management
projects, programs and agreements between tribal, public, and private
interests in the Cooperative Management and Protection Area;''
``TITLE 1--STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
AREA, Subtitle A--Designation and Purposes. Sec 102. PURPOSE AND
OBJECTIVES OF COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA (b) OBJECTIVES
(3) to conserve, protect and to ensure traditional access to cultural,
gathering, religious, and archaeological sites by the Burns Paiute
Tribe on Federal lands and to promote cooperation with private
landowners;''
``TITLE 1--STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
AREA, Subtitle A--Designation and Purposes. Sec 102. PURPOSE AND
OBJECTIVES OF COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA (b) OBJECTIVES
(5) to promote and foster cooperation, communication, and understanding
and to reduce conflict between Steens Mountain users and interests.''
``TITLE 1--STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
AREA, Subtitle B--Management of Federal Lands. Sec 111 MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITIES AND PURPOSES. (a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall manage
all Federal lands....in a manner that--(1) ensures the conservation,
protection and improved management of the ecological, social and
economic environment of the Cooperative Management and Protection area,
including geological, biological, wildlife, riparian, and scenic
resources, North American Indian tribal and cultural and archaeological
resource sites, and additional cultural and historic sites; and (2)
recognizes and allows current and historic recreational use.''
``TITLE 1--STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
AREA, Subtitle B--Management of Federal Lands. Sec 111 MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITIES AND PURPOSES. (b) MANAGEMENT PLAN (3) provide for
coordination with State, county, and private landowners and the Burns
Paiute Tribe; and (4) determine measurable and achievable management
objectives, consistent with the management objectives in section 102,
to ensure the ecological integrity of the area.''
During the intervening months since the passage of H.R. 4828, a
constant oversight and review of the work of both the Steens Mountain
Advisory Committee (S.M.A.C.) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
has shown clearly that the Traditional Practices of the Burns Paiute
Tribe and the Burns Paiute people individually are of less concern in
the wording and intent of the Steens Wilderness Management Plan than
the potential for litigation from ``interested parties.''
First, the Burns Paiute Tribe has brought forward numerous issues
of concern that range from respect and acknowledgement of the Burns
Paiute Tribal Values to those Traditional Tribal Practices vital for
the continuation of their culture. Within the range of issues brought
forward, the only issues not immediately challenged either by the
S.M.A.C. or the BLM's interdisciplinary team charged with the creation
of a management plan, are those small issues that could be described as
politically expedient and appear at first blush to be politically
correct (i.e., signage in Paiute within the Wilderness area), but in
reality are politically and legally innocuous. All other issues brought
forward by the Burns Paiute Tribe to the S.M.A.C. and the BLM have
elicited argument without discussion or cooperation, comments of a
derisive nature, or excuses that implementation of those issues would
bring on potential future litigation. All issues of this nature are met
with a less that cooperative tone: discussion of options or creative
management while maintaining legal compliance is not considered.
The Burns Paiute Tribe asserts that this is neither within the
letter nor the intent of the legislation. It is not within the charge
or the intent of the S.M.A.C. and the BLM's charge to create a
management plan specific to the Steens Wilderness. As examples and
specificity were requested, example issues are elaborated upon below:
1. Lack of understanding and respect for Burns Paiute Tribal
citizenship, sovereignty, and importance as a community within the
larger Harney and Malheur Counties communities.
(a) Use of the generic ``tribe'', ``tribes'', ``Native American
groups'' by the BLM in all documentation rather than ``Burns Paiute
Tribe'' as is used in the legislation:
When questioned about the constant use of ``tribes'' and ``native
American concerns'' in all recent public documents concerning the
Steens Wilderness and the Steens/Andrews Resource Area, the BLM and the
BLM members of the S.M.A.C. consistently harkens back to phrases
quoting BLM generated ``scientific reports'' written by university
scholars, which state several tribes as traditionally interested in the
Steens area. If there is an issue of multiple aboriginal use and
claims, the issue would be resolved between the various tribes of this
area. The issue would not be a subject of debate amongst ``expert
scholars'' nor should it ever be an issue created by Federal agencies
in an attempt to set management policy. We can not find any
documentation that this is an issue, nor have we been contacted by any
other Tribe to state our claim of traditional use as not exclusive.
Regardless, the Burns Paiute Tribal people are not willing to
accede to the BLM's insistence in all documentation and conversation
concerning Tse Tse Ede to the terminologically generic ``tribe'' or
``tribes'' when discussing ``Native American Interests''. The constant
reference by BLM staff to potential litigation at the questioning of
this issue seems to be the common response to ``uncomfortable'' issues
or those that are outside BLM standard practice.
The use of the terminology of the generic ``tribes'' is
disrespectful to the Burns Paiute Tribal people, denying them regard as
a sovereign nation of people. This generic ``tribes'' creates a
nameless, faceless, cultureless, history-less group or groups and
relegates the Burns Paiute Tribe to ``special interest'' status rather
than a major stakeholder.
If the BLM and the S.M.A.C. does require legal precedence in
understanding of aboriginal use areas of the Northern Paiute peoples
(the ancestors of the Burns Paiute), they have only to refer to the
1951 Congressional hearings concerning land use already supplied to
them.
(b) The importance of the Burns Paiute Tribe currently and as a
major stakeholder in the
health of Tse Tse Ede.
``The Burns Paiute Tribe has a small reservation in Harney County,
located near Burns. The tribe was established by Executive Order
instead of by treaty and has no reserved treaty rights (Hanes 1999)''
(Summary of the Analysis of the Management Situation, Andrews
Management Unit/Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protective
Area Resource Management Plan, April 2002, page 2-8) This is the
totality of the importance that the BLM documents for the multiple
millennia of lives and history of the Burns Paiute Tribe, and their
importance in the fabric of the current Harney and Malheur county
areas.
Perhaps this BLM viewpoint is explained further by their statement
``The area was first permanently settled in the 1870's.'' (Summary of
the Analysis of the Management Situation, Andrews Management Unit/
Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protective Area Resource
Management Plan, April 2002, page 2-9). The Burns Paiute Tribe's
multiple millennia of living in and maintaining a healthy ecosystem
within this now fragile environment is wiped out in one sentence.
Perhaps the BLM would be better served by the Paiute point of view: The
multiple millennia of settlement, extensive land-use, and balanced
ecological stability of the Steens area was disrupted by the ingress of
non-Paiute foreign European-American agriculturists, miners, and
trappers in the 1870's.
The Burns Paiute People are the descendents of the Northern Paiute,
or Wadatika people. The Wadatika's homeland encompasses a territory
from the Cascades east past what is now Boise, and from the Columbia
south well into Nevada. Their traditional visiting territory extends
well beyond those limits. The presumption by the BLM and other agencies
that the Burns Paiute Tribes' sole interest and legal viability is
restricted to the small reservation currently located adjacent to Burns
Oregon is ludicrous. To relegate the Burns Paiute Tribe to
inconsequentiality and ``special interest groups'' status based on the
size of the current Reservation and numbers of souls who live on that
Reservation is insulting.
2. Access to Tse Tse Ede for Traditional Practices
A great number of Traditional Practices are conducted at Tse Tse
Ede: subsistence gathering, secular and sacred Traditional Practices to
name a few. While a number of these Traditional Practices are singular
or are participated in by small groups, numerous are also participated
in by larger numbers of individuals and individuals of limited mobility
due to advanced age. The Burns Paiute Tribe is not willing to leave out
participating Tribal members due to an arbitrary numeric limit to group
size in the wilderness. The Burns Paiute Tribe is not willing to leave
at home to most valued members of their community from any Traditional
Practice because those individuals are of limited mobility due to age
solely to accommodate the limited interpretation of the Wilderness Act
by environmental ``evangelists''. The Burns Paiute Tribe is not willing
to alter, accommodate, or dismantle Traditional sacred practices and
religion to accommodate the Wilderness Act and those individuals within
the S.M.A.C. and BLM who represent a singular agenda and detrimental
ethnocentric view.
(a) Native American People throughout the north and south American
continents have a multi-millennial tradition of stable and ecologically
sound ``land use''. The management planning of ``Wilderness Areas'' is
almost always stated within Federal documents as a return of the land
to its ``pre-settlement'' ecology. While Native American tribes deplore
this phrase as a disavowal of their having been living on the land in
question for multiple millennia prior to the influx of the Euro-
American pioneers, the simple fact that the Wilderness Act wishes to
return the land to the ecosystem of time when Native Americans
``stewarded'' the lands in itself is proof that our Traditional
Practices, inclusive, are within the letter and the intent of the
Wilderness Act.
(b) For both the BLM and members of the S.M.A.C. this issue of
continuation of Traditional Practices is stated as a non-issue.
Wilderness is stated to be exclusively non-motorized in any manner and
for any purpose. Group limits must be maintained for fear that ``a New
Yorker looking for the wilderness experience'' is not inconvenienced.
For the Burns Paiute People to be able to continue with Traditional
Practices, they all must be able to have access to Tse Tse Ede. This is
not a matter of having ``a wilderness experience'', but the survival of
a culture.
(c) There are numerous exceptions (a quick review of the literature
shows 46 to date) to the strictest interpretation of the Wilderness Act
(see Attachment 1). Most of these exceptions are for the purpose of
access for maintenance of power lines, maintenance of electric
facilities, maintenance of sanitary facilities, wild animal management,
mining claims, etc. While the Burns Paiute Tribe acknowledges the
importance of such exclusions from the Wilderness Act, they do not
consider their right and need to continue Traditional Practices as less
vital that the management of Big Horn Sheep and the maintenance of
outhouses.
4. H.R. 4828 gives both the BLM and the S.M.A.C. Clear direction as
to setting management designations for access:
``TITLE 1--STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
AREA, Subtitle B--Management of Federal Lands. Sec 112 ROADS AND TRAVEL
ACCESS (a) TRANSPORTATION PLAN--The management plan shall include, as
an integral part, a comprehensive transportation plan for the Federal
lands included in the Cooperative Management and Protection Area, which
shall address the maintenance, improvement, and closure of roads and
trails as well as travel access.''
``TITLE 1--STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
AREA, Subtitle B--Management of Federal Lands. Sec 111 MANAGEMENT
AUTHORITIES AND PURPOSES. (b) (1) (B) is limited to such roads and
trails as may be designated for their use as part of the management
plan.''
The Federal Register also addresses this issue:
Federal Register Vol 65, No 241, Section 6301.5 Definitions: access
means the physical ability of property owners and their successors in
interest to have ingress to and egress from State or private in
holdings, valid mining claims, or other valid occupancies.
Federal Register Vol 65, No 241, Section 6302.18 HOW MAY AMERICAN
INDIANS USE WILDERNESS AREAS FOR TRADITIONAL RELIGOUS PURPOSES? In
accordance with the American Indian Religious freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996), American Indians may use wilderness areas for traditional
religious purposes, subject to the provisions of the Wilderness Act,
the prohibitions in Sect 6302.20 and other applicable law.
Although mining is abhorred anywhere in and around Tse Tse Ede by
the Burns Paiute Tribal people (especially egregious in an area of such
secular and sacred regard), the Minerals Act is a prime example of
allowable access within the Wilderness. When mentioned that mining is
neither as vital as Traditional Practices and is infinitely more
environmentally more damaging, the classic (for the BLM) refrain of
``but the Materials Act precedes the other laws'' is used as a ``valid
reason'' to deny Traditional Practices. The Burns Paiute Tribe's multi
millennial use and occupation of Tse Tse Ede surely precedes a law
created a paltry 130 years ago. This time span of multiple millennia
would also be ``valid occupancy'' as defined within the Federal
Register (above)
5. The differing views of Cultural Heritage between the BLM and the
Burns Paiute Tribe.
When assessing issues of importance to be addressed in the scoping
for the management of the Steens Wilderness for the Steens/Andrews
Resource Area, the BLM continues to utilize the most restrictive
definitions of ``Cultural Resources'' and ``Cultural Heritage'' as
those items of archaeological significance. The Burns Paiute Tribe can
not and will not accept this definition: to accept this definition is
to deny the continuum of rich and vibrant Tradition and Culture of the
Burns Paiute people from the past, in the present, and into the future.
When a dominant culture puts its historic importance and sense of
historic value on buildings and books, on monuments and markers, how is
culture to protect the Traditional Values that are can not assessed
under the same restrictive guidelines? When a Native American area of
historic, social, cultural, religious, and ancestral value comes under
imminent destruction, alteration, or (as in this case) change in
availability is the Native American Culture in question to be held to
the standards of a culture so divergent in value and assessment? The
Burns Paiute Tribe were hopeful that the wording, so carefully crafted
within this Bill, would allow the Values and the Traditions to be
maintained without being held to the determination standards of
buildings and monuments. Apparently we were mistaken.
Second, the charge given to the BLM within the legislation states
clearly that the S.M.A.C.
``Wilderness Act (PL 88-577, 78 Stat. 890; U.S.C. 1 1 21, 1 1 31-
1136) USE OF THE WILDERNESS AREAS, Sec. 4. (b) Except as otherwise
provided in this chapter, each agency administering any area designated
as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness
character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other
purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its
wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter,
wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of
recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and
historical use.
The Burns Paiute Tribe's question to the BLM, the S.M.A.C., and the
Congressional Subcommittee: is there any group more vested in the
conservation of Tse Tse Ede? More interested in the education of their
children at Tse Tse Ede? Have a more valid claim to Historic use?
The people of the Burns Paiute Tribe choose neither to have
abridged nor to abdicate any of the Traditional Practices of their
people. The people of the Burns Paiute Tribe choose not to disavow any
areas of sacred significance within or immediately adjacent to the area
of the Steens Mountains.
Attachment 1:
Wilderness Laws: Prohibited and Permitted Uses
Wilderness Act Provisions
Sec. 4(d)(1) allows ``the use of aircraft or motorboats, where
these uses have already become established,'' subject to ``desirable''
restrictions;
Sec. 4(d)(1) also allows ``such measures... as may be necessary in
the control of fire, insects, and diseases,'' subject to ''desirable''
conditions;
Sec. 4(d)(2) allows mineral prospecting conducted ``in a manner
compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment'';
Sec. 4(d)(3) provides for establishing and developing valid mineral
rights, ``subject, however, to such reasonable regulations governing
ingress and egress as may be prescribed'' consistent with using the
land for mineral development, and with leases, permits, and licenses
containing ``such stipulations as may be prescribed ... for the
protection of the wilderness character of the land consistent with the
use of the land
Sec. 4(d)(4) allows the President to authorize water project
development, including road construction and use;
Sec. 4(d)(4) also allows livestock grazing, ``where established
prior to the effective date of this Act... subject to such reasonable
regulations as are deemed necessary''; and
Sec. 4(d)(6) allows commercial services ``which are proper for
realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the areas.
Subsequently Enacted Provisions
Motorized Access-Land
P.L. 95-237, Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978: Sec. 2(i)
allows local government access for maintaining current and future
watershed facilities in one area in Utah.
P.L. 95-249, Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Act: Sec. 4 preserves a
right-of-way claim in one area being litigated at that time.
P.L. 95-495, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act: Sec. 4(e)
allows snow-mobile use in certain areas; Sec. 4(d) and Sec. 4(g) allow
mechanized portages in certain areas; Sec. 4(h) allows continued
motorized uses only; and Sec. 4(i) allows motorized access for
emergencies and administrative purposes.
P.L. 96-487, Maska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of
1980: Sec. 703 (b) allows mechanized portage equipment in a specific
area.
P.L. 96-560, Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980: Sec. 102(a)(17)
allows motorized access for maintenance of water resource facilities in
one area.
P.L. 98-425, California Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 101(a)(2) and
(25) allow continued access for livestock facilities in two specific
areas; Sec. 101(a)(6) allows motorized administrative use of a fire
road between contiguous wilderness areas; and Sec. 101(a)(24) allows a
right-of-way for construction.
P.L. 98-428, Utah Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 302(b) allows local
government access for maintaining current and future watershed
facilities in 9 of the 12 areas designated. P.L. 98-550, Wyoming
Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 201(a)(11) allows motorized Federal access
for bighorn sheep management in one designated area.
P.L. 101-628, Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990: Sec. 101(a)(3)
allows access for operating and maintaining a pipeline in one area;
Sec. 101(a)(20) provides access and use of a powerline right-of-way in
one area; and Sec. 101(k) allows continued use and maintenance of a
particular road.
P.L. 102-301, Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act:
Sec. 2(5) allows continued use of a road corridor in one area until a
bypass is completed.
P.L. 103-77, Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993: Sec. 8(d) allows
motorized access for use, operation, maintenance, repair, and
replacement in all designated areas.
P.L. 103-433, California Desert Protection Act of 1994: Sec. 102(1)
and (13) provide rightsof-way for military access across two designated
areas; Sec. 103 (f) allows state motorized access for wildlife
management; and Sec. 708 guarantees access to non-federal lands within
all designated areas.
Motorized Access-Water
P.L. 93-429, Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Act:
Sec. 2(1) allows powered watercraft of 10 horsepower or less within the
area.
P.L. 95-495, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act: Sec. 4(c)
identifies horsepower limits and duration (some access is temporary)
for motorboats in specific counties and or lakes within the area; and
Sec. 4(f) limits motorboat use to historic levels, except for
homeowners.
P.L. 98-430, Florida Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 1(4) allows
continued motorboat use in one area.
Motorized Access-Ai
P.L. 95-237, Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978: Sec. 2(i)
allows helicopter access for sanitary facilities in one area in Utah.
P.L. 96-312, Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980: Sec. 7(a)(1)
allows continued landing of aircraft within a designated area.
P.L. 98-428, Utah Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 302(b) allows
helicopter access for sanitary facilities in 10 of the 12 designated
areas.
Water Infrastructure
P.L. 95-237, Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978: Sec. 2(e)
protects rights for water diversion and use, including operations,
maintenance, repair, and replacement in one area in Colorado.
P.L. 96-550, New Mexico Wilderness Act of 1980: Sec. 102(a)(9)
retains existing management, rules, and regulations for a municipal
watershed in one area.
P.L. 96-560, Colorado Wilderness Act of 1980: Sec. 102(a)(5)
protects rights for water diversion and use, including operation,
construction, maintenance, and repair in one area.
P.L. 98-425, California Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 101(a)(25)
protects rights for water diversion and use, including construction,
operation, maintenance, and repair in one area.
P.L. 98-550, Wyoming Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 201(c) protects
rights for water diversion and use, including construction, operation,
maintenance, and modification in four areas.
P.L. 101-628, Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990: Sec. 101(1)
protects flood control dam operations in one area; and Sec. 301(e) and
Sec. 302 direct that the two areas abutting the Colorado River have no
effect on upstream dams or on water management in the Upper Colorado
River Basin, respectively.
P.L. 103-77, Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993: Sec. 2(a)(13)
protects rights for water diversion and use, including construction,
operation, use, maintenance, and repair in one area.
P.L. 103-433, California Desert Protection Act of 1994: Sec. 202
and Sec. 203 direct that the two areas abutting the Colorado River have
no effect on upstream dams or on water management in the Upper Colorado
River Basin, respectively.
Other Infrastructure and Activities
P.L. 95-237, Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978: Sec. 2(c)
and Sec. 2(d) allow fire prevention and watershed protection activities
in two areas.
P.L. 96-312, Central Idaho Wilderness Act of 1980: Sec. 5(d)(1)
allows prospecting and exploration for and development of cobalt within
part of one area.
P.L. 96-550, New Mexico Wilderness Act of 1980: Sec. 102(a)(5)
allows construction of additional fencing for livestock grazing in one
area.
P.L. 97-384, Charles C. Deam Wilderness Act: Sec. 3 allows access
to and maintenance of a cemetery in one area in Indiana.
P.L. 98-322, Vermont Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 104(c) allows
maintenance of trails and associated facilities in all designated
areas.
P.L. 98-406, Arizona Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 101(a)(13) allows
installation and maintenance of hydrological, meteorological, and
telecommunication equipment in one area.
P.L. 98-428, Utah Wilderness Act of 1984: Sec. 305 allows
installation and maintenance of hydrological, meteorological,
climatological, and communication equipment in 9 of 12 designated
areas.
P.L. 100-668, Washington Park Wilderness Act of 1988: Sec. 102
allows the maintenance, repair, and replacement of an underground
powerline through one area.
P.L. 101-195, Nevada Wilderness Act of 1990: Sec. 10 allows
installation and maintenance of hydrological, meteorological, and
climatological equipment in all designated areas.
P.L. 101-628, Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990: Sec. 301(g)
allows continued border enforcement activities within one designated
area.
P.L. 101-633, Illinois Wilderness Act of 1990: Sec. 9 allows access
to and maintenance of a cemetery in one area.
P.L. 102-301, Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act:
Sec. 3(b) allows fire prevention and watershed protection activities in
one area.
P.L. 103-433, California Desert Protection Act of 1994: Sec. 103(g)
allows motorized law enforcement activities within all designated
areas; and Sec. 705(a) provides for Native American access for cultural
and religious purposes.
______
[The statement submitted for the record by TinaMarie Ekker,
Policy Director, Wilderness Watch, Missoula, Montana, follows:]
Statement of TinaMarie Ekker, Policy Director, Wilderness Watch
Wilderness Watch appreciates this opportunity to provide written
testimony into the hearing record regarding management of the Steens
Mountain Wilderness in Oregon.
Wilderness Watch is a national conservation organization focused on
the stewardship of areas within the National Wilderness Preservation
System and Wild and Scenic Rivers System. We strive to monitor the
stewardship of every wilderness and wild river in the system. Our
purpose is to ensure that the wilderness character of these special
places is protected and preserved.
When Congress designated the Steens Mountain Wilderness in October
2000 making it part of the National Wilderness Preservation System
(NWPS) it gave a new charge to the stewards of the area. That charge or
mandate is clearly spelled out in the Wilderness Act: ``...each agency
administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible
for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so
administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been
established as also to preserve its wilderness character.'' (Wilderness
Act, Section 4(b)). Wilderness character includes among many other
things both measurable and immeasurable, the absence of roads,
commercial enterprise, motor vehicles and human-built structures and
installations. In being designated as Wilderness, Steens became part of
an extraordinary system of national preserves, ``where the earth and
its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man is a visitor
who does not remain...an area retaining its primeval character and
influence...which is protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural conditions'' and which ``has outstanding opportunities for
solitude...'' (Wilderness Act, Section 2(c)).
As part of the National Wilderness Preservation System what happens
in the Steens affects more than just this one area. It affects the
quality and integrity of the entire system. If activities are allowed
to occur that degrade wilderness qualities in the Steens Mountain
Wilderness, those same activities are likely to soon begin occurring
elsewhere, resulting in eventual degradation of the system overall, and
essentially the disappearance of wilderness in America as we have known
it up until now.
We are deeply concerned about several management issues that have
emerged regarding the implementation of the Steens Mountain Cooperative
Management and Protection Act (P.L. 106-399). These issues include
BLM's failure to regulate the use of motor vehicles within the
Wilderness by grazing permittees and private landowners, and the
agencies failure to regulate activities of certain commercial
operations inside the Wilderness. I will address each of these concerns
individually.
Motor Vehicle Use by Grazing Permittees
The Steens Mountain Act allows grazing to continue on some Federal
lands in the area. Within the wilderness, the Act directs that grazing
shall be managed according to what are commonly referred to as the
Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Appendices A and B of House Report
101-405 of the 101st Congress). These guidelines do not allow for
routine and unlimited use of motor vehicles by permittees in
wilderness. The grazing guidelines state:
Where practical alternatives do not exist, maintenance or other
activities may be accomplished through the occasional use of motorized
equipment'' The use of motorized equipment should be expressly
authorized in the grazing permits for the area involved. The use of
motorized equipment should be based on a rule of practical necessity
and reasonableness. For example, motorized equipment need not be
allowed for the placement of small quantities of salt or other
activities where such activities can reasonably and practically be
accomplished on horseback or foot. On the other hand, it may be
appropriate to permit the occasional use of motorized equipment to haul
large quantities of salt to distribution points. Moreover, under the
rule of reasonableness, occasional use of motorized equipment should be
permitted where practical alternatives are not available and such use
would not have a significant adverse impact on the natural environment.
BLM is currently working on an environmental assessment (EA) to
evaluate the motorized access needs of grazing permittees. As part of
this assessment the BLM has requested information from the permittees
regarding their past use of motor vehicles in the area. There is
concern that the number of annual motor vehicle trips being reported by
the permittees are highly inflated and cannot be verified by agency
staff. Our worry is that future permitted motorized use should not be
based on past use without an independent evaluation of whether other
reasonable alternatives are available. Now that the area is designated
wilderness, the Congressional Grazing Guidelines should be stringently
applied to protect the area's wilderness character while also
accommodating valid access needs of the grazing permittees.
While access permits are in the preparation process, we are
dismayed that the BLM is currently allowing the grazing permittees to
drive motor vehicles inside the wilderness whenever they wish. I
confirmed that this is happening in a conversation with Miles Brown,
Area Manager for the Steens Mountain Wilderness. When I asked how many
motorized trips had been conducted so far this year by grazing
permittees, he said that BLM doesn't know. He said he knows some
permittees have been driving into the wilderness to drop of salt
blocks. The Congressional Grazing Guidelines specifically discourage
motorized access for this activity. We feel this is indicative of the
way BLM is failing to meet its legislative mandate to preserve
wilderness character while still allowing for reasonable grazing
management practices.
Commercial Activities
Both the Wilderness Act and the Steens Mountain Act allow
commercial services in wilderness. Both Acts restrict such services to
allow only those that are compatible with wilderness. The Wilderness
Act stipulates that commercial services may only be allowed ``to the
extent necessary'' for realizing a wilderness purpose.
To operate in the Steens Mountain Wilderness an outfitter or guide
must obtain a special use permit from the BLM. These permits describe
terms and conditions that the outfitter must adhere to while conducting
their commercial operation. The agency must apply the NEPA process
during its review of all applications for special use permits.
Wilderness Watch is concerned that BLM has been allowing some
commercial entities to operate within the Steens Mountain Wilderness
with no NEPA review and therefore without a valid special use permit.
Furthermore, we are concerned that BLM is allowing some commercial
operators to conduct activities that are incompatible with wilderness.
For example, BLM has allowed one outfitter to drive motor vehicles
through the Wilderness for purposes of transporting gear to set up
their commercial base camp on a private inholding that they've leased
since the Wilderness was designated in October 2000. Allowing a
commercial outfitter to drive a motor vehicle in the wilderness
violates Section 115 of the Steens Mountain Act. This section
stipulates that BLM can only issue a special use permit for a
commercial service if the activities associated with that commercial
operation are consistent with the Wilderness Act. Driving in wilderness
as part of a commercial outfitting operation is clearly inconsistent
with the intent of the Wilderness Act.
Similarly, Wilderness Watch is also concerned that BLM continues to
allow the Steens Mountain Running Camp to operate inside the
wilderness. Wilderness Watch does not object to the camp's operating on
public lands in the Steens region provided BLM completes the necessary
environmental analyses and incorporates appropriate safeguards into the
permit'something BLM has thus far failed to do. But Wilderness Watch
does believe that the running camp's operation violates well-
established principles of Wilderness stewardship and BLM regulations.
The camp claims that it has a right to continue its commercial
operation inside the wilderness because it is a ``historic use.'' The
Steens Mountain Wilderness is part of the larger Cooperative Management
and Protection Area (CMPA). One of the general objectives of the CMPA
is to ``promote grazing, recreation, historic, and other uses that are
sustainable.'' However, this general objective does not imply that all
past historic uses can occur in an unregulated manner anywhere and
everywhere throughout the CMPA. If the Act had intended that, then even
snowmobiling might be allowed in the Steens Mountain Wilderness! This
general objective referring to ``historic use'' in the CMPA does not
override the clear legislative stipulations in Title II that govern
management of the wilderness.
Ever since the Wilderness Act of 1964 established our national
Wilderness system, the type of event proposed by the running camp,
which includes running groups of 150-180 clients and staff through the
Wilderness at one time, has been prohibited by managing agencies.
Management plans for Wilderness nearly always place a limit on the
number of people in any one group and the limit is usually 15 or less.
Not a single plan approaches anything near the 180 people per group
that the running camp desires. Moreover, these limits apply to
everyone: church groups, girl scouts, boy scouts, family groups, school
groups, Sierra Club outings and all other users. The issue really comes
down to whether the running camp should be exempt from 40 years of
Wilderness stewardship principles and the rules that apply to all other
Americans who wish to visit Wilderness. Wilderness Watch does not
believe it should. Instead, we believe that the rules that have been in
place for nearly 40 years and that apply to all other visitors should
also apply to the private running camp.
Motorized Access to Inholdings
Within the Steens Mountain Wilderness, as in many other
wildernesses, are several parcels of private land that are completely
surrounded by the wilderness. Both Title II of the Steens Act and the
Wilderness Act provide for non-motorized access to inholdings. Neither
Act, however, requires motorized access. Title II states that
``reasonable access'' shall be allowed in order to provide the owner of
the land or interest in land reasonable use of their property. This
reasonable access for reasonable use principle governs access to those
inholdings in the Steens Mountain Wilderness which do not have a legal
right of access such as an easement or a right-of-way. It falls to the
BLM to make an independent determination of what constitutes reasonable
access for a particular inholder if they apply for a special use permit
requesting motorized access.
At the present time none of the inholders have applied for a
special use permit for access although there is rumor that some may be
threatening to drive in without a permit. Wilderness Watch verified
through BLM that last year a realtor was driving whenever he wished
inside the wilderness to show clients one of the inholdings that is for
sale. To our knowledge BLM did nothing to regulate this use or to take
action that would safeguard the Wilderness. Again, this demonstrates an
unwillingness on the part of the agency to meet its legal mandate to
preserve the Wilderness character of the Steens Mountain Wilderness.
Wilderness inholdings are situated in remote locations. Many have
never had road or even trail access. The managing agencies commonly
deny requests for motorized access when other means of access are
available such as foot, horseback, or aircraft. For example, in a
recent court decision the Forest Service was upheld in its denial of
motorized access to an inholding located nine miles within the
Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness in Montana. The judge ruled that for such
remotely situated wilderness property foot or horseback access was
reasonable.
The Wilderness Act clearly articulates that motor vehicles, roads,
and mechanized equipment are incompatible with an area's wilderness
character, which is why such things are prohibited in wilderness with
only very narrow exceptions. Section 112 of the Steens Mountain Act
addresses roads and general use of motor vehicles. It states that the
use of motorized or mechanized vehicles on Federal lands included in
the Cooperative Management and Protection Area (which includes the
wilderness) are not prohibited if the Secretary determines that such
use--
``...is appropriate for the construction or maintenance of
agricultural facilities, fish and wildlife management, or
ecological restoration projects, except in areas designated as
wilderness...''
Clearly, in the Steens Mountain Act Congress did not intend to
allow routine or unlimited use of motor vehicles inside the wilderness,
regardless of whether some people were accustomed to using motor
vehicles in the past. Wilderness designation created a new purpose for
the area, and regular use of motor vehicles is incompatible with the
purpose of preserving wilderness character.
It is our understanding that BLM has notified all inholders that
each landowner has the opportunity to apply for a special use permit
for mechanized access to his or her property. If any of the inholders
choose to apply for such a permit BLM is then required to analyze the
proposal using the process required by the National Environmental
Policy Act and agency regulations. Utilizing that process while
incorporating the special protections and restrictions imposed by the
Steens Mountain Wilderness will allow the agency to make a case by case
determination on the appropriate type and amount of access for each
private inholding. Until permits are requested and the agency completes
the required analysis and makes a determination on the request there is
no legal authority to allow for motor vehicle use by private parties in
the Steens Mountain Wilderness. That BLM is currently allowing private
landowners and / or their representatives to drive through the Steens
Mountain Wilderness is an abrogation of the agency's Wilderness
stewardship responsibilities and the legal requirements imposed by
Congress.
Conclusion
The Steens Mountain area is a local, regional and national treasure
that can provide myriad benefits to present and future generations of
American citizens. As part of the National Wilderness Preservation
System, the Steens Mountain Wilderness must be administered--first and
foremost--to preserve its Wilderness character. The issues facing the
Steens Mountain Wilderness are not unique to this particular
wilderness. The same types of issues are being dealt with throughout
the National Wilderness Preservation System by all four wilderness
managing agencies. If extensive motorized incursions and incompatible
commercial uses are allowed at Steens Mountain it will undermine the
integrity of our wilderness system and hamper the efforts of wilderness
managers elsewhere to protect wilderness from degradation related to
incompatible uses. Conversely, management decisions at Steens that
protect the wilderness resource can enhance wilderness stewardship
everywhere. We look forward to continuing to work with BLM officials
and interested Members of Congress toward improving the stewardship of
the Steens Mountain Wilderness.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Stephen and Stephanie
Finlayson, Burns, Oregon, follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A newspaper article submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A letter submitted for the record by Pete Runnels, Burns, Oregon,
follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[A statement submitted for the record by Jill M. Workman,
Chair, Steens-Alvord Coalition, follows:]
Statement of Jill M. Workman, Chair, Steens-Alvord Coalition
I understand that you have received inquiries from your colleagues
regarding the Steens Mountain legislation's impact on the running camp
that takes place on Steens Mountain each summer. As chair of the
Steens-Alvord Coalition, I am writing to let you know that the
coalition views the running camp as relatively benign. We do not take
issue with its continued existence nor do we intend to attempt to
incorporate into the legislation any language that would limit or force
the running camp to change its operation. We do not know which portion
of the legislation is causing such concern to the camp's owner.
It seems apparent that the potential legislation was discussed with
the campers both last and this summer. Last year the Southeast Oregon
RAC received numerous letters from campers asking us (I represent
environmental interests on the RAC) to not close the camp, to keep the
Steens Mountain Road open and to continue to allow people to recreate
on the mountain--we had not considered closing the camp, the Steens
Mountain Road or the mountain to recreation use. This summer's pack of
letter's (Harlan, the camp's owner/operator, had about 60 with him at
the Steens Mountain Forum in Bend two weeks ago) were destined for the
representatives and senators for the states where the campers live.
As you may know, this running camp houses its campers in tents on
private land and the campers spend the majority of their days running
through the gorges of Steens Mountain, much of which is public land. I
doubt that most visitors to the mountain realize that the camp is
there. The camp has a special use permit from BLM and we have not
purposed any changes to that permit.
I am hopeful that addressing this matter now will keep the running
camp from becoming an issue as we attempt to move forward with
consensus legislation. Please call me if you have any questions about
the coalition's position on the running camp or if you believe it would
be helpful for a coalition member to discuss this matter with the
camp's owner or a person receiving a letter from a camper.
We appreciate your time and attention to working towards consensus
legislation for Steens Mountain and Alvord Basin, and we hope to meet
with you during our visit to Washington, DC the first week of
September.
Have a great day!
-