[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2016, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM ACT
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS
AND PUBLIC LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Thursday, June 7, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-29
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
-----
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-021 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Ken Calvert, California
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Grace F. Napolitano, California Rick Renzi, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Carolina
Jim Costa, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
George Miller, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Rob Bishop, Utah
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Dean Heller, Nevada
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Bill Sali, Idaho
Lois Capps, California Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona, Chairman
ROB BISHOP, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Chris Cannon, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Islands Jeff Flake, Arizona
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Rick Renzi, Arizona
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Carolina
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Louie Gohmert, Texas
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Dean Heller, Nevada
Jay Inslee, Washington Bill Sali, Idaho
Mark Udall, Colorado Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, June 7, 2007........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 5
Capps, Hon. Lois, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, Statement submitted for the record.......... 20
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 1
Statement of Witnesses:
Bono, Hon. Mary, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Daly, Elena, Director, National Landscape Conservation
System, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior................................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Gray, Randy, Former Mayor, Great Falls, Montana.............. 35
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Meadows, William H., President, The Wilderness Society....... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Moe, Richard, President, The National Trust for Historic
Preservation............................................... 26
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia.......................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Williams, Cindy Deacon, M.S., Senior Scientist and Director
of Aquatic Science and Education Programs, National Center
for Conservation Science & Policy.......................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 31
Williams, Orie, Chief Executive Officer, Doyon Limited....... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Additional materials supplied:
Butcher, Trevis M., Missouri River Land Users, Winifred,
Montana, Statement submitted for the record................ 2
Coalition of 47 organizations, including American Hiking
Society, American Rivers, American Society of Landscape
Architects, et al., Letter submitted for the record........ 24
Otley, Fred I., Diamond, Oregon, Letter to Senator Wyden,
Senator Smith, and Congressman Walden submitted for the
record..................................................... 19
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2016, THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION
SYSTEM ACT.
----------
Thursday, June 7, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:01 p.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Raul Grijalva
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grijalva, Bishop, Lamborn, and
Young.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Let me call the Subcommittee on
National Parks, Forests and Public Lands to this hearing on
H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conversation System Act. I
would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the
legislation I introduced, and also thank you for keeping up
with us today. We originally scheduled, I think, two other
times, and because of the markup that we had at the full
committee, this hearing is now at this time. I appreciate and
thank everybody.
One of the witnesses, Mr. Trevis Butcher, had to catch a
plane and will not be here with us, but his testimony will be
obviously made part of the entire record.
I would like to thank all the witnesses that are here for
joining us today, for their time and effort to be here. Their
insights will be very helpful as the Subcommittee considers
this legislation.
The National Landscape Conservation System exists on 26
million acres across the western United States and it exists in
the Bureau of Land Management regulations. The NLCS does not
exist, however, in statute. H.R. 2016 will remedy that by
providing a simple, permanent congressional authorization for
this conservation system within BLM. H.R. 2016 is
straightforward legislation, only three pages long. The bill
does not alter the management of any existing unit, nor change
the overall management of the system.
The monuments, the NCAs, the wild and scenic rivers and
other NLCS units will continue to be managed according to their
enabling authority and other applicable laws. What this
legislation does do is provide the system with a congressional
stamp of approval, giving the NLCS the direction and backing to
flourish in the years to come.
We are well aware that the history of some of the units
within the NLCS includes periods of controversy. Although many
of the fears expressed at the time some of these units were
designated never materialized, to reassure anyone who remains
concerned, let me be clear. Nothing in this legislation
increases Federal land ownership or regulation or impacts
private land in any way. While we might support redesignations
in the future, the bill does not include any new additions to
the system.
H.R. 2016 is less about acreage or management and more
about the BLM and its mission. In the not too distant past, the
first step in any effort to conserve BLM land was to transfer
the land to the National Park Service. The purpose of H.R. 2016
is to provide congressional recognition of BLM's effort to
fulfill the conservation aspect of its multiple-use mandate by
retaining and conserving these areas.
The units of NLCS are indeed special places. We welcome
BLM's effort to conserve them for present and future
generations and are eager to support the agency in that effort
through H.R. 2016.
Mr. Grijalva. With that, I will turn to the Ranking Member,
Mr. Bishop, for any opening comments he may have. Mr. Bishop.
[The statement submitted for the record by Trevis Butcher
follows:]
Statement submitted for the record by Trevis M. Butcher, Missouri River
Land Users (Speaking for more than 10,000 neighbors directly affected
by this proposed legislation)--Winifred, Montana
Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
on H.R. 2016. I am going to restrict my testimony to address the
impacts of this proposal regarding one of the specific Monuments
included under the broad and monumental changes which this proposed
legislation will impose through statute on rural Montana which I
represent.
I own a cattle ranch which neighbors the southern boundary of the
Missouri River Monument. This ranch has been in our family since the
region was settled in 1914. I am the fourth generation to operate it
and the fifth generation is currently at home haying while I have
journeyed more than 2,000 miles to present this committee with some
insight into the issues which have continually been ignored by
advocates of this massive government take-over of my neighborhood.
The Missouri River National Monument designation was a last minute
and poorly conceived Executive Order by former President Clinton in the
final days of his Presidency. This designation under the Antiquities
Act did not meet the basic criteria for designation under this Act.
Secretary Babbitt and his supporters in conjunction with the BLM lied
to the Montana citizens claiming it would meet the criteria. It was a
general proclamation, without any defined boundaries, based on the
premise of protecting a historic section of the Missouri River
traversed by the Lewis and Clark Expedition. This section of the
Missouri River had in fact been under Federal protection for forty
years through the Wild and Scenic Act. It has been managed by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a multiple use designation without
problems emphasizing traditional agriculture usage, hunting, motorized
boating, fishing, hiking, and other recreational uses. It is contingent
to the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge which is the best
example causing Montana citizens to oppose a proposed Monument. This
proposed area has no need for ``preservation'' since it is maintained
in much the same manor for the past 100 years.
This was where the problems have begun which members of this
Committee and Congress needs to consider during deliberation in this
body. The Missouri River Monument boundaries were not planned with
public input and were simply arbitrarily defined ``after the fact'' by
the BLM to encompass 477,000 acres which includes 81,000 acres of
private property as well as over 40,000 acres of School Trust Land
managed by the State of Montana to fund the educational needs of our
students. We could live with Monument boundaries 1/4 to 1/2 mile from
the center of the River which respected private property rights and
would protect the aesthetic view of the rim of the river corridor from
any visual obstructions. It is simply not acceptable to control
property ten to forty miles or more from the River Corridor ``being
protected'' by the intent of this proposed legislation.
There are 120 families with privately owned land with in this
proposed National Monument which is direct violation of the Antiquities
Act restricting inclusion of private property in a monument
designation. These family ranches face serious economic impacts to
their operations as a result of the BLM's proposed draconian
restrictions on traditional ranching practices. Of even more concern is
the financial impact to all areas of Montana government. Approximately,
46% of the State of Montana is already government land so only 54% of
this 4th largest State provides the tax base to support local and state
government services. The six counties directly impacted by this
Monument and proposed restrictions already have large amounts of
federal government land and the PILT payments periodically authorized
by Congress does not adequately replace property taxes for our schools
and local government services.
This designated Monument is also located in the middle of a large
proven natural gas field with existing producing wells and a pipe-line
on private property scattered throughout the Monument designation. I
must call the Committee's attention to the serious economic liability
to the State School Trust Fund as well as to the private property
owners within the Monument who will be unable to benefit from natural
gas development thirty and forty miles from the ``Scenic River
Corridor.'' In contrast private property south of the designated
Monument (including my own) is scheduled for expansion of the gas
development during the fall of 2007 which is in response to critical
National energy requirements. The large gas field within the Monument
boundaries is being ignored costing Montana schools over $200,000 per
day and twice that amount to the 120 private property owners within the
Monument boundaries plus others who hold ``split estate'' mineral
rights. I cannot emphasize enough that this legislation will grossly
affect our basic property rights which is fundamental to our
traditional American political and economic system.
The Legislation before this Committee would codify bad policy
leaving no room for common sense management decisions addressing local
needs. This legislation gives the BLM statutory authority to implement
policies and regulations which establishes power through their
management of scattered government owned land, over huge areas of
private property. Beyond the effects on the residents within the
Monument, the rest of the citizens of this region will also be severely
impacted. Under proposed BLM rules for Monument Management, the BLM is
proposing closure of over half the existing access roads to private
property and traditional recreational opportunities within the Monument
boundaries. This is continuation of Federal policies resulting in
Montana residents having lost 2/3 of access and trails during the last
decade resulting from ``east coast'' mandated policies orchestrated
within the Beltway and bowels of New York City by special interest
groups lacking any concept of life in Montana.
For over 100 years this has been a continuous ranching economy with
large fields of grain which has been farmed since the area was first
homesteaded in 1910-1914 in addition to the thousands of cattle which
graze throughout the area. The river bottoms, until the past 20 years
when the BLM traded some of the land to other areas, was highly
productive irrigated alfalfa hay land. Now there is still a few
thousand acres of hay-land remaining with the rest managed by the BLM
which has consequently reverted to desolate, weed infested habitat
resulting in the traditional Elk and deer populations migrating from
the Monument area on to adjoining private property in search of healthy
ecosystems leaving the grossly mismanaged government property.
I want to emphasize, that contrary to the radical environmentalists
who claim ``to be saving wild lands for the future,'' every inch of the
``primitive area'' has had cattle grazing, ranchers riding horses,
hunters and recreationists traversing the entire area for the last 100
years. Members of Congress, this is a thriving area which is home to
120 ranches which the proponents are proposing to force to leave the
area with their livestock and community economic base! This translates
into the loss of 9,200 mother cows translating into a 25 million dollar
regional impact.
I want to call the committee members' attention to the unsettled
case of former Congresswoman Helen Chenoweth in the U.S. Court of
Claims which has declared that there is significant economic value to
those grazing federal managed land. If applied to the Monument, this
could have a ``fee title'' value of $4,000 to $6,000 per animal grazing
unit. This places the total grazing values at approximately $60 Million
and far higher value on water rights held by the Monument's in-holders.
This has yet to be addressed by the management plans proposed by the
BLM and could add a significant liability to the federal government.
The people promoting the Missouri River Monument are either out-of-
state financed activists who are new to the area or idealists who live
in other parts of Montana. I would like to call members of this
Committee's attention to the fact that the Montana legislature
overwhelmingly passed a bi-partisan resolution in both 2001 and 2003
legislative sessions strongly opposing the Monument designation.
Members of Congress these are the elected representatives who recognize
how detrimental federal policies are on the people of Montana.
In addition the 13 BLM hearings regarding the proposed Monument
restrictions and operating rules in 2006 was unanimously opposed by the
County Commissioners and overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of the
six affected Montana counties. In contrast the proponents had full-time
paid staff trying to orchestrate support, but the majority of the
testimony (even at the hearings held 200-300 miles from the Monument)
was in opposition. Strong opposition to the Monument came from a true
cross-section of sportsmen, boaters, airplane pilots (from across the
West testifying to retain the ten ``primitive air-strips'' which have
existed for over 50 years within the proposed Monument boundaries),
motorists who have enjoyed scenic trips on the dusty dirt roads for
decades, groups with disabilities, and of course the ranchers and
businessmen who face economic ruin as the BLM begins implementation of
draconian regulations which deny the traditional usage and access which
has been enjoyed and promised by the BLM to thousands of people since
the turn of the last Century.
I also want to point out that the Native American tribal leaders of
the Fort Belknap Reservation which borders the Monument on the
northeast boundary also testified in strong opposition to the BLM
proposal repeating the general opposition expressed by other residents
of the area. They stated in strong terms ``You are taking our access,
our rights, our land, and our children's future.''
The people of Montana have been told for decades by the BLM, Forest
Service and Federal Fish and Wildlife agencies that traditional usage
at current levels would be respected. However, these Federal agencies
have continually and systematically restricted access to a navigatable
river which witnessed millions of tons of freight and thousands of
passengers transported during the 1860's through the 1890's on this
strip of River to Fort Benton which had over one mile of docks and
wharfs to accommodate the economic activity. I must remind the
congressmen that this is still a legally navigatable river which could
open up increased litigation if the BLM management rules are
implemented.
For the past 100 years the river has seen thousands of recreational
craft replacing the side-wheelers and other 19th century merchant fleet
with the continued activity of a thriving usage joining the thousands
of cows plus maintaining habitat full of elk, deer, antelope and other
wildlife being watched by the cowboys on their horses drinking out of
the Missouri--all the while maintaining the areas pristine natural
beauty. I want to emphasize that the scenic vistas and lush meadows
that are used for photo backdrops are almost exclusively on private
land--not Government land.
Montana boasts that 80% of its citizens are gun owners of which a
large percentage hunts. The private property contained within the
Monument is the basis for wild game management which has for five
generations been Montana's premiere hunting location. The several
thousand Montana's who opposed the Monument designation recognized that
during the time federal government became involved in land management
the number of game animals sharply decreased and restrictions and
regulations escalated.
We are frustrated by the continual lies perpetuated through
brochures, power point presentations, and media clips at taxpayer
expense. Now the BLM and its expansive bureaucracy wants to ``rescue
this scenic area'' form the very people who have lovingly maintained it
for a half dozen generations and sustainably used its resources. For
years the BLM personnel and decision makers were native Montana raised
people who understood and appreciated the natural balance of managing
this region to accommodate multiple usage principles. Now out-of-state
environmentalists are shaping policies which are threatening the
property rights of the 120 ranchers representing a half dozen
generations who have lived and worked in the area declared in 2001 as a
National Monument.
How can I convey the scenes of high school gyms and community
centers with packed bleacher seats and floors packed with folding
chairs all filled to capacity with young and old--toddlers carrying
signs ``don't take my daddy's farm'' or teenagers carrying signs ``hug
a cowboy--not a tree!'' Old and young waiting for hours to voice
opposition or simply supporting the speakers expressing their upset
over federal government policies which will end their children and
grandchildren's hopes to continue their way of life and the investments
in money and ``sweat'' from their ancestors who have continuously
ridden their horses over this land.
We saw the streets of historic Fort Benton (the birthplace of
Montana) filled with large semi-tractor trucks pulling big cattle
trailers for as far as you could see protesting the government take-
over with billboards proclaiming ``NO MONUMENT.'' The BL M faced the
parking lot in the city of Havre (fifty miles from the proposed
Monument) filled with horses and riders who had traveled up to 100
miles from throughout the proposed monument area all protesting this
misguided federal land grab. In Lewistown (the BLM headquarters for the
Monument management) we saw the county court house surrounded with ATV
and snowmobile owners protesting federal closure of the recreation
roads in the Monument designation. We saw sportsmen crowding into every
hearing throughout Montana and signing petitions opposing this Monument
as ``bad policy.''
UNFORTUNATELY, THE REST OF AMERICA DID NOT SEE THE OVERWHELMING
OPPOSITION WHICH WAS EXHIBITED CONTINUALLY THROUGHOUT THE 13 PUBLIC
HEARINGS MUCH TO THE DISTRESS OF THE BLM BUREAUCRACY WHO EXPECTED THE
LOCAL NATIVES TO BOW TO THE AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON BUREAUCRATS.
Because of private property rights including the land policy
setting the scene for forced sales, illegal taking of traditional
established access--representatives in the State political process are
discussing the potential needs to increase funding for our attorney
general's office to prepare for legal challenges to remedy the legal
issues which agriculture, sportsmen, recreation, and other groups are
identifying as resulting from the Monument proposal.
I appreciate the opportunity to bring the concerns of the people of
Montana to Congress. My only wish is that the members of this body
could have attended the hearings in Montana and witnessed the passion,
frustration, and tears of the residents of the proposed Monument area.
It is difficult to properly convey the feelings of oppression from the
``heel of the Washington D.C. bureaucracy'' as Montana residents
witness their property rights, livelihoods, and family dreams crushed
under policies developed by out-of-state environmental activists. The
power granted the BLM under this legislation combined with a
presidential decision based on misguided political philosophy upsets
the entire economic structure and the lives of hundreds of existing
residents.
I want to emphasize that there is no shortage of government owned
land in Montana with nearly 50% of the State comprised of government
owned non-taxpaying property all of which is slowly being restricted
from public use under Forest Service and Federal Fish and Wildlife
management practices which now appears to be the direction the Bureau
of Land Management will move under this proposed legislation.
The BLM has from the beginning said ``...you have nothing to worry
about; we will make sure your concerns and needs will be protected.'' I
do not see the hundreds of hours of testimony, the truck loads of
individual written testimony (in contrast to ``canned'' environmental
comments sent in by out-of-state activists and city folks who lack
understanding of the area and impacts from their miss-guided
proposals.) We are frustrated by the army of BLM staff members who
promote their agenda at taxpayers' expense while I have had to travel
thousands of miles to be here today at my personal expense to express
the concerns of my neighbors, county commissioners, state legislators
(including my father), and the thousands of ordinary Montana residents
who spent time attending hearings protesting misguided federal policy.
We often feel helpless when we are restricted to only two witnesses's
to express our concerns in contrast the proponents being allowed three
to four times as many special interest proponents.
In conclusion this legislation codifies on-going ``one size fits
all'' radical environmental policy being implemented throughout the
western United States destroying private property rights which is the
foundation of our American economic and political system. I only ask
you to consider the tens of thousands of ordinary tax-paying Americans
who plead with you as elected representatives not to destroy their
economic and cultural foundations in this insidious acquisition of
private property by the government at the behest of the world-wide
environmental movement.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have serious
concerns with H.R. 2016. Coming from a state where much of our
land is already under Federal lock and key, you should be able
to understand why I am less than enthusiastic to see another
layer of bureaucracy placed over us.
On the surface, proponents of the bill claim this does
nothing more than codify a program created by the Clinton
Administration which preserves and protects the lands that have
a remarkable ability to, as Ms. Daly will put it, define who we
are as a Nation. Some of the lands are remarkable but some of
the other lands were created at the whim of special interest
groups by a sympathetic President.
We are now told we need to create a system for these lands.
Believe it or not, we have a system to protect nationally
significant lands. It is called the National Park Service. This
appears to be a thinly veiled attempt to insert restrictive
National Park Service management methods on other lands, which
indeed should be used in a multi-use way.
The Chairman's bill uses language to the delight of trial
attorneys and their responsibility to balance conservation and
recreation. This bill introduces the concept of values into the
BLM. My question is what is the value to the BLM. In the
National Park Service, the value is now interpreted, after
court cases, that is, to include such subjective things as
soundscapes, viewscapes and occasionally, smell sheds. Should
we anticipate further legislation to protect these values in
the Bureau of Lands?
Initially, I thought this bill was, at worst, the camel's
nose under the tent. However, under closer examination, this
bill not only invites the camel into the tent, he is also in
the sleeping bag.
Let's look directly at the legislation--Section 3,
Establishment. In order to conserve, protect, and restore
nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding
cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of
current and future generations, there is established in the
Bureau of Land Management a National Landscape Conversation
System.
This may as well be the National Park Service Organic Act.
It is the same language. It unfortunately goes on. The bill
further directs the Secretary to manage these lands in a manner
that protects the values for which the components of the system
were designated. Again, we are presented with the vague concept
of values.
This legislation is the biggest invitation to lawsuits
since the slip and fall scheme was invented, and I can see the
day when a judge decides that in light of this language, all
units of this system will be managed in a uniform and
consistent way. It is unconscionable to force our multiple
public lands down the same path that force personal watercraft
out of the national recreation areas and put snowmobiles on the
endangered species list.
This bill also has created another Federal designation. The
Chairman's bill will include any area designated by Congress to
be administered for conservation purposes within this new
system. After this has become law, we should expect an
onslaught of bills for new national units in the new national
land conservation system.
Finally, a witness could have testified to this committee
had it gone when it was supposed to today about the impacts
these designations will have on peoples' lives. There are
witnesses who will give us testimony in written form that have
been included in these designations against their wishes.
Making this system permanent will have a direct impact on them.
This legislation also puts rights of Alaskan Natives, of
critical importance to me and also the Ranking Member, Mr.
Young.
We should deliberate this proposal carefully because the
special interests have already put multiple use in jeopardy
with this bill.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Let me begin with our
first panel and welcome our colleagues and extend our
appreciation for taking the time. Let me begin with The
Honorable Mary Bono, a colleague from California. Very active
in the Landscape Conservation Caucus and a cosponsor of H.R.
2016. And let me turn that over to you, Ms. Bono, for any
comments that you may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARY BONO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Bono. I thank the Chair very much. I just want to
start by assuring Mr. Bishop that I, in my many years of life,
have done an awful lot of camping in Utah, and never once did I
ever wake up with a camel in my sleeping bag. But I want to
thank you both very, very much for allowing me to testify
today.
I also think part of my frustration with Congress and the
way Congress works is that never do we take CODELs around our
country to visit our own lands ourselves to know our interior
as much as we ought to, and if we spend as much time touring
our own lands as we did foreign countries, it would be a very,
very good thing for the people of the United States.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
today on H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System
Act. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we started the work that led to
this legislation with the NLCS Caucus that was formed to
examine ways to provide recognition to some of our country's
most impressive open spaces. I came to this point today after
recognizing how effectively the model for balancing
conservation and recreational pursuits has been achieved on
Federal lands in my congressional district.
In October of 2000, the Santa Rose-San Jacinto Mountains
National Monument Act became law, providing an example of one
of the first national monuments to be designated legislatively.
The issues surrounding the culminating legislation were many,
with varying concerns over access, recreation and preserving
unique plant and wildlife species that live in the area.
In the end, we were able to effectively engage our local
stakeholders to gain the support of private landowners, Native
American tribes and the conservation community. The success of
the monument and its value to the Coachella Valley in
California is significant. This is the reason why I am
supporting H.R. 2016, as the ability for the BLM to oversee
these lands for conversation while also working to achieve the
continued need for access and recreation is commendable.
At this time, within the monument in my district, work is
being done to protect the peninsular desert bighorn sheep and a
total of 73 percent of the existing critical habitats of
endangered species is within the NLCS. It is my hope visitors
to this monument will continue to experience this unique area
for years to come.
Further, I do think it is important that we move forward
with this legislation while knowing that different areas
throughout the country have enacted various management plans
for the lands within the system components. Protecting the
original intent of these underlying prescriptions that may have
been established in legislation or through an administrative
act is both sensible and important.
The NLCS needs the proper oversight of Congress, which is
why I think today's hearing is very valuable. The system ranges
from monuments, to trails across the country, including areas
that I visited throughout my entire life. It is clear that the
BLM faces challenges. With this legislation, we can now
potentially better quantify what value these lands bring to so
many parts of our lives.
In moving forward with this legislation, I have heard input
from other members, and it is my hope that proper consideration
can be given to ensuring we can protect these unique areas
while maintaining the intent of existing law, and I think we
should underscore that point.
Today's hearing will hopefully display the varied ways in
which these lands can be utilized for enriching the lives of
tourists from other countries, domestic visitors or the
residents who are fortunate enough to have these lands in their
backyard.
With that, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, I
am hopeful of the bipartisan support of this committee on this
effort, and I appreciate the support of the administration. I
thank you again for the opportunity to testify, given the time
changes that we have all had to endure today. Thank you very
much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bono follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mary Bono, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Subcommittee and Full Committee,
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R.
2016, the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) Act. As you
know, Mr. Chairman, we started the work that led to this legislation
with the National Landscape Conservation System Caucus that was formed
to examine ways to provide recognition some of our country's most
impressive open spaces.
I came to this point today after recognizing how effectively the
model for balancing conservation and recreational pursuits has been
achieved on federal lands in my Congressional district. In October of
2000, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Act
became law, providing an example of one of the first national monuments
to be designated legislatively.
The issues surrounding the culminating legislation were many, with
varying concerns over access, recreation, and preserving the unique
plant and wildlife species that live in the area. In the end, we were
able to effectively engage our local stakeholders to gain the support
of private landowners, Native American tribes, and the conservation
community.
The success of the Monument and its value to the Coachella Valley
in California is significant. This is the reason why I am supporting
H.R. 2016, as the ability for the Bureau of Land Management to oversee
these lands for conservation while also working to achieve the
continued need for access and recreation is commendable.
At this time, within the Monument in my district, work is being
done to protect the Peninsular Desert Bighorn Sheep and a total of 73%
of the existing critical habitat for this endangered species is within
the NLCS.
It is my hope that visitors to the Monument will continue to
experience this unique area for years to come. Further, I do think it
is important that we move forward with this legislation while knowing
that different areas throughout the country have enacted various
management plans for the lands within the System components. Protecting
the original intent of these underlying prescriptions that may have
been established in legislation or through an Administrative act is
both sensible and important.
The NLCS needs the proper oversight of Congress, which is why I
think that today's hearing is so valuable. The System ranges from
monuments to trails, including areas that I've visited throughout my
life across the country. It is clear that the BLM faces challenges that
we can now potentially better quantify what value these lands bring to
so many parts of our lives.
In moving forward with this legislation, I have heard input from
other Members, and it is my hope that proper consideration can be given
to ensuring we can protect these unique areas while maintaining the
intent of existing law.
Today's hearing will hopefully display the varied ways in which
these lands can be utilized for enriching the lives of tourists from
other countries or the casual weekend for outdoor enthusiast who is
fortunate enough to have these lands in their backyard.
With that, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, I am
hopeful of the bipartisan support of the Committee on this effort as
well as the support of the Administration. I thank you again for the
opportunity to testify given the time changes that have taken place
with the other priorities of this Committee.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now turn to our colleague Congressman
Moran, also a cosponsor of H.R. 2016 and a member of the
caucus, one of the co-chairs, for your comments and your
testimony, Congressman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, particularly my fellow co-chairs, Congresswoman Bono
and you, Chairman Grijalva. Today's hearing in support of H.R.
2016, the National Landscape Conversation System Act, this is a
simple piece of legislation that will codify the Bureau of Land
Management's conservation system so that it will be recognized
and managed as a national system.
These lands were rightly given special status as national
monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness, wild and
scenic rivers and national scenic and historic trails by
Congress and by Presidential proclamation. While the majority
of these lands are in the western United States, we need look
no further than just across the Potomac River in northern
Virginia where a segment of the Potomac Heritage Trail crosses
my congressional district. Like the widely popular Potomac
Heritage Trail, the preservation of all of these lands is
undeniably important for recreation and open space. Of equal or
perhaps even greater importance, however, is their role in
conserving landmark natural, cultural and scientific resources.
Today, however, Congress has not recognized their
management in a unified system. These places are unique and
diverse and continue to provide our Nation with new
appreciation of their historic, cultural and scientific
importance. In Utah, although they haven't found any camels,
they did find a very rare dinosaur skin that was discovered
with bone fossils.
We can explore our own history and the settlement of this
continent through the Lewis and Clark Trail, the California,
Pony Express, the Oregon Trail, and the Mormon Pioneer and Old
Spanish National Historic Trails. New insect discoveries are
emerging from Grand Canyon, including a new genus and four new
species of crickets and two new species of millipedes.
Those are important because of the ecology that they are
part of. The Headwaters Forest Reserve is home to threatened
murrelets and the endangered northern spotted owls. The
Vermillion Cliffs National Monument in Arizona is the release
site and habitat for the endangered California condor, which
was brought back from the brink of extinction.
Seven years ago this month, these lands were
administratively organized as a system by the U.S. Department
of the Interior. The Bureau of Land Management has proven that
they can manage these lands for conversation and it is time for
Congress to give this conversation system their stamp of
approval. There is demonstrated bipartisan support for the
conservation system and this legislation through the National
Landscape Conversation System Congressional Caucus. This
measure also enjoys the support of the Bush administration.
So I thank you for the opportunity to submit this
statement. I appreciate your leadership on this issue and I
encourage the committee to move swiftly to consider this
legislation. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much thank
my colleague Ms. Bono for testifying as well, and for your
leadership. Mr. Bishop doesn't seem quite as enthusiastic, so I
will thank him for this particular piece of legislation.
Mr. Bishop. It has been a long day.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]
Statement of The Honorable James P. Moran, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Virginia
Chairman Grijalva, Members of the Committee and honored guests, I
am pleased to join you and one of my fellow Co-Chairs of the National
Landscape Conservation System Congressional Caucus, Mary Bono, at
today's hearing in support of H.R. 2016, the National Landscape
Conservation System Act. This simple piece of legislation will codify
the Bureau of Land Management's conservation system, so that it will be
recognized and managed as a national system.
These lands were rightly given special status as National
Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wild and Scenic
Rivers and National Scenic and Historic Trails by Congress and by
Presidential Proclamation. While the majority of these lands are in the
Western United States, we need look no further than just across the
Potomac River in Northern Virginia where a segment of the Potomac
Heritage Trail crosses my congressional district.
Like the widely popular Potomac Heritage Trail, the preservation of
these lands is undeniably important for recreation and open space. Of
equal or perhaps even greater importance, however, is their role in
conserving landmark natural, cultural and scientific resources. To
date, however, Congress has not recognized their management as a whole
in a unified system.
These places are unique and diverse and continue to provide our
nation with new discoveries of historic, cultural and scientific
importance. In Utah, a very rare dinosaur skin was discovered with
hadrosaur bone fossils. We can explore our own history and settlement
of this continent through the Lewis and Clark Trail, the California,
Pony Express, the Oregon Trail, and the Mormon Pioneer and Old Spanish
National Historic Trails. New insect discoveries are emerging from
Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument in Arizona, including a new
genus and four new species of crickets and two new species of
millipedes. The Headwaters Forest Reserve is home to threatened Marbled
Murrelets and the endangered Northern Spotted Owls. The Vermillion
Cliffs National Monument in Arizona is the release site and habitat for
the endangered California Condor, which was brought back from the brink
of extinction.
Seven years ago this month, these lands were administratively
organized as a system by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The
Bureau of Land Management has proven they can manage these lands for
conservation, and it is time for Congress to give this conservation
system their stamp of approval. There is demonstrated bipartisan
support for the conservation system and this legislation through the
National Landscape Conservation System Congressional Caucus. This
measure also enjoys the support of the Bush Administration. I thank you
the opportunity to submit this statement and I urge your swift
consideration of this legislation.
______
Mr. Grijalva. I have no questions for our colleagues. Mr.
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. No questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me thank you. I extend the invitation
that you are free to join us at the dais, but as you rush out
the door, I can appreciate that as well. Thank you very much.
Thank you for your testimony.
Let me call the next panelist up. Ms. Elena Daly, Director
of National Landscape Conservation System, Bureau of Land
Management. Thank you very much, Director. I am particularly
grateful given the circumstances that occurred to you. I would
venture to say that this hearing, although it might be some
tough questions, cannot compare to being hit by a car. And so I
would like to extend to you our appreciation for you taking the
time and being here and look forward to your testimony. You may
begin.
STATEMENT OF ELENA DALY, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Ms. Daly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman
and members of the committee, I am Elena Daly, Director of the
National Landscape Conservation System. Thank you for inviting
me to testify on H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation
System Act.
The NLCS is a significant part of BLM's conservation
efforts and is integral to BLM's overall multiple use mission.
The BLM is proud to oversee the system which includes areas
nationally recognized for their outstanding values. These lands
are not simply places to visit, they help us define who we are
as a Nation, and they tell our national story as it unfolded in
the unforgettable landscapes of the West.
The Department supports H.R. 2016, a bill that would
legislatively establish the NLCS to protect, conserve and
restore nationally significant landscapes. The bill would
provide for the inclusion in the NLCS of congressional and
Presidentially designated special places administered by BLM.
H.R. 2016 would provide legislative support for the NLCS and
its conservation mission within BLM.
In June of 2000, the Department of the Interior
administratively established the NLCS to bring into a single
organized system many of BLM's outstanding ecological, cultural
and scientific landscapes. The BLM is charged with managing the
public lands for a wide variety of uses. This multiple use
mission directs the balanced management of public land for uses
that may include, but certainly are not limited to recreation,
livestock, grazing, energy development and timber harvest.
The NLCS is a integral part of that mission and includes
national monuments, national conservation areas, national
scenic and historic trails, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness
and wilderness study areas. Over the last 6 years since its
inception, the NLCS has established successful collaborative
relationships with local communities, States, tribes, and
private citizens. These partnerships are also critical as we
pursue our mission.
In an increasingly crowded and fast-changing West, NLCS
units provide some of the best examples of open space. For the
most part, NLCS units are not highly developed. Rather, they
provide visitors a different sort of outdoor experience, an
opportunity to explore, discover and relax.
H.R. 2016 proposes to establish in statute the current
administrative structure of the BLM National Landscape
Conservation System. We understand that the bill is intended to
maintain the current management of the NLCS individual units,
and as each unit is unique, we strongly support this.
By formalizing the NLCS, H.R. 2016 would give congressional
support and direction, strengthening the special system of
lands within the context of BLM's multiple use mission. This
will assure that these landscapes of the American spirit would
be conserved, protected and restored for the benefit of current
and future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R.
2016. I will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Daly follows:]
Statement of Elena Daly, Director, National Landscape Conservation
System, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 2016, the National
Landscape Conservation System Act. The National Landscape Conservation
System (NLCS) is a significant part of the Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) conservation efforts and is integral to the BLM's overall
multiple-use mission. The BLM is proud to oversee this system which
includes areas nationally recognized for their outstanding values.
These lands are not simply places to visit; they help define who we are
as a Nation and tell the story of our nation as it unfolded in the
unforgettable natural landscapes of the West.
The Department supports H.R. 2016, a bill that would legislatively
establish the NLCS in order to conserve, protect, and restore
nationally significant landscapes. The bill would provide for the
inclusion in the NLCS of Congressionally and Presidentially designated
special places administered by the BLM. H.R. 2016 would provide
legislative support to the NLCS and its conservation mission within the
BLM.
Background
In June 2000, the Department of the Interior administratively
established the NLCS within the BLM bringing into a single organized
system many of the BLM's outstanding ecological, cultural and
scientific landscapes. The BLM is charged with managing the public
lands for a wide range of uses. This multiple-use mission directs the
balanced management of public lands for many uses, including
conservation, recreation, livestock grazing, energy development, and
timber production. The NLCS is an integral part of that mission and
includes National Monuments, National Conservation Areas (NCAs),
National Scenic and Historic Trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers,
Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). The BLM, under the
authority of section 603 of FLPMA, manages WSAs so as not to impair
their wilderness character. The establishment of the NLCS would not
change the status of the WSAs or the authority of Congress, at some
future time, to designate them as units of the National Wilderness
Preservation System or to release them for non-wilderness multiple use.
The NLCS currently includes 27 million acres of archaeological and
historic treasures such as Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in
Colorado and the Oregon National Historic Trail, wildlife havens such
as Snake River Birds of Prey NCA in Idaho and Aravaipa Canyon
Wilderness in Arizona, and hiking challenges such as King Range
National Conservation Area along the lost coast of northern California
and significant sections of the Continental Divide National Scenic
Trail as it winds its way through New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and
Montana.
Over the last six years, since its inception, the NLCS has
established successful, collaborative relationships with local
communities, States, tribes, friends groups, and private citizens.
These partnerships are critical to the on-the-ground success of NLCS
units.
In an increasingly crowded and fast-changing West, NLCS units
provide some of the best examples of open space. For the most part,
NLCS units are not highly developed. Rather, they provide visitors a
different kind of outdoor experience--an opportunity to explore,
discover and relax. These are places to get lost and find oneself.
Many NLCS units were designated specifically for their scientific
values. Recent discoveries at some NLCS units include cave-dwelling
millipedes previously unknown to science and numerous new species of
dinosaurs. In 2006, at Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the
discovery of one of the largest known oviraptor in the world (a giant
7-foot tall, 14-foot long flesh-eating, feathered dinosaur) was
revealed. The diverse opportunities for scientific inquiry allow NLCS
units to be used as outdoor laboratories by a wide range of
universities, colleges, and high schools including Brigham Young
University, Montana State University, Colorado State University,
Northern Arizona University, Universidad de Sonora (Mexico), Stanford
University, Boise State University, University of New South Wales
(Australia), Oregon State University, University of Utah, and the
University of Witwatersrand (South Africa). Their efforts also directly
benefit local communities. For example, studies of lava flows at
Craters of the Moon National Monument in collaboration with Idaho State
University contribute to hands-on science curriculum for local
elementary students.
Much of the support for NLCS units comes from local communities
that work with the BLM to engage in cooperative conservation that
enhance local economies, cultures, and resources. At New Mexico's
Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, an inter-governmental
cooperative agreement between the BLM and the Pueblo de Cochiti has
successfully provided for enhanced visitor services while improving the
health of the land at this spectacular geologic wonder. In southern
Arizona, Las Cienegas NCA is collaborating with local ranchers, water
districts, the State and county to develop innovative solutions to
managing this precious watershed in a desert environment--all in the
context of a historic ranching community.
Many NLCS units are adjacent to growing urban centers and provide
respite from the city as well as recreational opportunities. Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument adjoins the burgeoning Palm
Springs area of California; McGinnis Canyons NCA lies near Grand
Junction, Colorado; and Red Rock Canyon NCA is located just outside of
Las Vegas, Nevada. Red Rock Canyon NCA has some of the highest
visitation of any BLM-administered site and serves as an adventurous
alternative for locals and visitors from Las Vegas' other attractions.
The many communities in California's Coachella Valley welcome the
undeveloped open spaces of the Congressionally designated Santa Rosa
and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. Partnerships with the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Friends of the Desert Mountains,
and the cities of Palm Desert, Palm Springs, La Quinta, Cathedral City,
Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage and Indio have enhanced BLM's ability to
improve recreational opportunities while also providing for improved
habitat for the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. Colorado's growing
recreation industry promotes McInnis Canyon as a place for outdoor
activity including wilderness hiking, rafting and mountain biking.
From the remote, wild Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and
Protection Area in the eastern part of the State, to coastal Yaquina
Head Outstanding Natural Area's lighthouse and tidal pools, the
diversity of NLCS units can be viewed across the breadth of Oregon. The
Oregon National Historic Trail and the interpretive center in Baker
City provide a window into our pioneer past and the 300,000 emigrants
who used this pathway to the Pacific. Three ecosystems collide in
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in southwestern Oregon forming a
unique assemblage of rare plants and animals. Oregon's 802 miles of
wild and scenic rivers provide unparalleled opportunities for fishing,
hunting and boating which contribute to economic diversity in local
communities.
H.R. 2016
H.R. 2016 proposes to establish in statute the current
administrative structure of the BLM's National Landscape Conservation
System. We understand that the bill is intended to maintain the current
management of the NLCS' individual units. However, since we testified
before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee
on Public Lands and Forests, it has come to our attention that the
language in section 3(c)(2) could inadvertently create ambiguity or
confusion. As each unit is unique, we strongly support the recognition
of their individual management frameworks and we would like the
opportunity to work with the Chairman to clarify the legislation in
regards to section 3(c)(2).
By formalizing the NLCS, H.R. 2016 would give Congressional support
and direction, strengthening this special system of lands within the
context of the BLM's multiple-use mission. This will assure that these
landscapes of the American spirit would be conserved, protected, and
restored for the benefit of current and future generations.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2016. I
will be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Director. Let me ask you
some clarifying questions because the legislation provokes a
lot of other questions, and maybe through your answers, you can
begin to clarify some of those.
Beginning with what you said, the mission of multiple use
as a core of BLM's mission, how does the NLCS fit into the
definition of multiple use on BLM land? Is there a
contradiction there?
Ms. Daly. Most not a contradiction, Mr. Chair. Ninety-nine
percent of our units are available for grazing, for instance.
The valid existing rights, whether private property, or, for
instance, in Canyon of the Ancients National Monument, oil and
gas leases are honored. We continue to provide recreational
opportunities of a wide variety for people, everything from
motorized recreation on designated roads, to primitive camping,
for instance.
We do, through our science program wildlife projects, we
look forward to working with cultural resource management. We
have at least--Canyon of the Ancients, one of the most
intensely dense sites for cultural resources in the Nation. And
so you see a variety of BLM programs that figure into the
management of NLCS as well.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me follow up on the point that you just
made about--that the NLCS was established pursuant to valid
existing rights. You mentioned grazing, energy development
permitted on Federal land. Is there anything in H.R. 2016 that
alters that valid existent rights provision?
Ms. Daly. There is nothing in the bill that would do that,
sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. You mentioned the cultural
resources and how important it is. I do want to acknowledge
that point. I think repeatedly it has been made a core part of
the system, and I think that is very important. Can you maybe
explain to the committee the issue of the significance to
Native Americans of the NLCS and why there is so much support
for the system and for formalizing the system as you said among
Native American tribes.
Ms. Daly. Yes. First of all, a lot of our units contain the
sites that are culturally or religiously significant to many
tribes. We have ongoing working relationships, as Congressman
Bono mentioned, with Agua Caliente. The Pueblo De Cochiti
actually manages Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks in New Mexico. It is a
site that is significant to the Pueblo and they manage it to
honor those places.
We work very closely with a number of tribes on our trails.
So many of the historic trails if not all originated as Indian
footpaths across the Nation. And so it is important to involve
tribes such as the Shoshone, the Nez Perce, the northern plains
tribes in how we tell that story and how we manage those areas.
The Yurok tribe of Northern California has an agreement
with us to come to manage the northern part of the California
Coastal Monument because those areas are also significant to
them. Those are just a few of the tribal relationships that we
have established.
Mr. Grijalva. And repeatedly I have heard from native
nations the issue of access and how that has been a very
important part. Whether it is a sacred site, tradition, that
access has been not just granted but facilitated.
Ms. Daly. Absolutely. We work very closely with any of the
interests but we also guard that information very closely
because it is so important to the tribes.
Mr. Grijalva. Clarify, one last point; clarify the status
of private lands within the boundary or unit of NLCS. Are those
private lands actually part of the unit or do they remain
private?
Ms. Daly. They remain private.
Mr. Grijalva. At this point I don't have any more
questions. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, I apologize you actually had to come here
when you already suffered. I apologize for that. So let me give
you just a softball question at first before the grilling
begins.
What is the one advantage, since supposedly nothing changes
in the management scheme, you will continue to be Director of
this program, whether it is done by administrative rule or
whether it is done by congressional codification, what then is
the one advantage for congressional codification?
Ms. Daly. One advantage, sir, is it gives a sense of
permanence and security to the system that we don't currently
have.
Mr. Bishop. Is the system in danger now from administrative
reasons?
Ms. Daly. Not at the moment, no, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Could you just briefly tell me like the history
of the BLM, why it was established in the first place?
Ms. Daly. The BLM or NLCS, sir?
Mr. Bishop. The BLM.
Ms. Daly. It was established as a combination of the
Grazing Service and the General Land Office in 1946. It was
originally established to provide for multiple use management
of and disposal of public lands primarily in the West.
Mr. Bishop. What was the last part?
Ms. Daly. Managed for multiple use and disposal of public
lands in the West. Do you want the rest of the history or is
that enough?
Mr. Bishop. You got the basic part there; in fact, all the
phrases are essential. I wouldn't expect you to have actually
done this, but I doubt that you have actually read the enabling
acts of most western states when they came in the union as to
what historic purpose of their lands was to be.
Ms. Daly. No, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I wouldn't have imagined that to be the case.
In fact, I would be highly surprised if it were the case. You
have more important things to do than that. When you say then
that the lands are not simply places to visit but they help
define where we are as a Nation, does that fit in with the
historic role of the BLM?
Ms. Daly. It does. The point I gave you in the history was
1946. In 1976 with the passage of FLPMA, the BLM's mission was
broadened.
Mr. Bishop. Certainly was, wasn't it. Too bad you didn't
ask the western States about that when it happened. The concept
of conservation, recreation, livestock grazing, energy
development and timber production as you said in your testimony
are the important elements of BLM.
Ms. Daly. They are some of those elements, yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Can I ask, and you may not know this because it
a drafting issue, in the bill before when it says the purpose
of the establishment of this office, none of those elements,
livestock grazing, energy development, timber, those were left
out of the verbiage that is used when we try to codify this. Do
you have any idea why that was the case?
Ms. Daly. I did not participate in the drafting.
Mr. Bishop. Would you be opposed to adding that language in
there to specify the broad view of multiple purpose the BLM is
supposed to have?
Ms. Daly. I would prefer to defer to the committee on that,
sir.
Mr. Bishop. If we gave you the magic ability of being one
of us.
Ms. Daly. I would still defer to the committee.
Mr. Bishop. Let me try another one, which means with the
national wilderness areas, which of course--national wilderness
study areas, which are obviously not national wilderness but
simply areas to be studied until such time as Congress makes a
designation.
If this Act were to be passed, do you think it would be
either harder or easier to make an adjudication as to the
status of wilderness study areas?
Ms. Daly. I don't believe that the Act would affect that
adjudication one way or the other.
Mr. Bishop. Do you think it would make a difference to your
ability to administer those as presently your responsibility if
wilderness study areas were left off of the list of those
things encompassed within this new conservation system, since
that is supposedly a temporary status until Congress makes an
adjudication.
Ms. Daly. Again, sir, I would have to defer to the
committee. As far as the management, the bill does not change
the management of the system at all.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more and I will
defer--let me do one that can be very quick. You state in here
that the NLCS has established a successful collaborative
relationship with local communities. Do you expect that to
disappear without this bill?
Ms. Daly. No, sir. I fully expect it to continue to
increase.
Mr. Bishop. Whether this bill is here or not?
Ms. Daly. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. I only have 20 seconds here. I defer to other
members, but I do have questions.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I have a
background question. At least two of these areas that you
administer now are the McInnis Canyon area in Colorado and the
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado. Now I
was formally under the impression that a national monument was
part of the national park system, was one of the 390 some units
of the national park system, but this national monument is not.
What is the difference?
Ms. Daly. We have 15 national monuments, sir, and they were
established and given to the Bureau of Land Management in their
authorizing documents. As Mrs. Bono stated, Santa Rosa, San-San
Jacinto is the only congressionally established one of the
national monuments, all the rest were accomplished through
Presidential proclamation and----
Mr. Lamborn. So if it is a BLM managed area, then it is not
NPS, is what you are saying?
Ms. Daly. Correct.
Mr. Lamborn. So Congress could take a wilderness area and
elevate it to national monument status and put it in either
category or under either management, BLM or NPS.
Ms. Daly. That would certainly be a congressional decision.
Mr. Lamborn. That is my background question. Now, as to
this particular proposed legislation, in your testimony, you
stated that passage of the bill ``will assure that these
landscapes of the American spirit would be conserved, protected
and restored for the benefit of current and future
generations.'' my question is isn't this being done right now
under your mandate?
Ms. Daly. What happens under the NLCS that differentiates
it from general BLM management is that certainly the Bureau has
a conservation mission, but because of the unique aspects of
each of these places such as McGinnis Canyon or Canyons of the
Ancients we can move more toward the conservation side and make
some decisions that we might not otherwise be as free to make
on general BLM lands.
Mr. Lamborn. Could you be more specific about that? Give me
some examples where you have gone more in the conservation
direction as opposed to what you would have otherwise done.
Ms. Daly. Well, for instance, I would use Canyon of the
Ancients as an example with the intense density of cultural
resources. While we honor the valid existing rights on existing
oil and gas leases, there will be no new leases for oil and gas
in Canyons of the Ancients. If that were on general BLM land,
we couldn't necessarily make that statement. It might be open
to oil and gas development, thereby jeopardizing some of those
cultural resources.
Mr. Lamborn. So oil and gas leases is one possible thing
that would be lost under this legislation--well, under NLCS
designation as opposed to regular BLM designation.
Ms. Daly. If the proclamation says that, yes. If it is
withdrawn from mineral entry.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. You also said in your testimony that
passage of this bill would give congressional direction
regarding management of these lands. And my question overlaps
with what I just asked a minute ago. Don't you already have
special designations that give you direction on how to manage
BLM land, or are you seeking more or different kind of
direction?
Ms. Daly. Actually, what we are seeking, sir, is closer to
a permanent system. The bill does not ask for any further
direction, does not ask for any increase in the system, it
simply says that the system will exist, and since it is
administratively determined right now, while there may be no
immediate threat, I cannot tell you that in 20 or 30 years
there may not be.
Mr. Lamborn. Apart from freezing any oil and not allowing
any further oil and gas leases, what other practical
differences would this make if you take a parcel under NLCS
authority?
Ms. Daly. It doesn't necessarily stop oil and gas, that was
just the Canyon of the Ancients example. It would depend on
what the proclamation or legislation said that created the
unit. But essentially that is what the bill does, it just moves
us from administratively designated to congressionally
sanctioned. It is a formalization.
Mr. Lamborn. Would there be other possible restrictions on
use other than not allowing oil and gas leases that you can
think of?
Ms. Daly. That would have to be determined by whomever
created the unit to be put in. For instance, if Congress
determined there should be a unit added to the system, Congress
would tell us what the restrictions would be. If it was done by
the President under the authority of the Antiquities Act, the
Presidential proclamation would limit it. We do not determine
those restrictions.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you for your answers.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have some
additional questions, Director, but we are going to recess this
meeting. It has been that kind of day, we have three votes, and
should be back within half an hour to 35 minutes. Thank you for
your indulgence and we will continue with the questions when we
get back. Hearing is recessed.
[recess.]
Mr. Grijalva. Let me reconvene the hearing and turn to Mr.
Bishop for any additional questions he might have.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Daly, I had the chance of talking to
Congressman Walden this morning about the Steens Act provision
that is in this particular bill. Of course, it is a difficult
situation. I understand that both the Senate and the House
version of this particular bill cause some potential concerns
for them for the Steens Act because primarily the
implementation of the Steens Act was caused by the National
Landscape Conversation System and the management handbook and
the policies which accompanied it, so that all on-ground
collaborative work among the landowners and conservation groups
and local government working with BLM to implement the Steens
Act, and as Congressman Walden and members of the Oregon
delegation intended, was initially thwarted by NLCS handbook.
The question I have, though, is I understand this morning
the Department of the Interior noted its strong support to
modify the language of this particular bill to ensure that that
historic bipartisan consensus-based Steens Act would clearly be
the overall guiding statute in the current and future
management plans of this area that is known as the Steens
Mountain Cooperative Management Protection Area. Am I correct
in that assumption?
Ms. Daly. You are correct, sir.
Mr. Bishop. I assume that the Department would have no
problems if there were to be clarifying language.
Ms. Daly. Absolutely none.
Mr. Bishop. Ms. Daly, I do have some compassion for the
situation you were in. I don't want to hold you here longer. I
have a whole lot of questions and the questions are very
pointed. I am more than happy to put them in written form and
send them to you and you can at your leisure respond to them in
that way.
Ms. Daly. Thank you, sir. We would be glad to respond to
those questions.
Mr. Bishop. I will yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I would note that H.R.
2016 does not authorize the BLM as a whole, it is just NLCS
that we are talking about in this discussion.
Director, thank you so much. Appreciate it very much. Thank
you for adjusting your whole day. Appreciate it very much.
To the rest of the panelists that are coming up, the same
thanks for adjusting your whole day. If we could call the next
panel up, please.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent for
the record to include a letter that is to Senator Wyden and
Senator Smith and Congressman Walden.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection. Also at the same time let
me enter in the record for one of our colleagues, Ms. Lois
Capps, a communication to the committee. Without objection.
[The letter from Mr. Otley submitted for the record
follows:]
Date: June 6, 2007
To: Senator, Wyden, Senator Smith and Congressman Walden
From: Fred Otley 40926 S Diamond Ln Diamond, OR 97722 (541) 493-2702
Subject: S. 1139/H.R. 2016, National Landscape Conservation System Act
You provided the leadership for the writing and enactment of the
Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000. The
Steens Act is very unique from all other public land, resource
management and environmental legislation in providing language that
balances and promotes protection, multiple-use, private land, grazing,
recreation and cooperative management. S. 1139/H.R. 2016 will
substantially destroy the fundamentals of the Steens Act due to the
following reasons:
1. First, the primary problems we have had with the implementation
of the Steens Act was caused by the National Landscape Conservation
System and the Management Handbooks and Policies that go with it. All
of your work to get the BLM to implement the Steens Act as you wrote it
and as you intended the Act to be implemented was initially thwarted by
the NLCS Handbook, management directives and philosophy. We did not
know this until last year.
2. Our position with BLM was to ``use all sections and language of
the Steens Act as the fundamental directives, purposes, objectives and
management framework for interim and operating plans, environmental
assessments, the Resource Management Plan, EISs, etc.'' and the Steens
Act will be a model the all other special designation should emulate.
The BLM began using the Steens Act as the primary directive instead of
NLCS guidance and all of the past implementation problems rapidly have
disappeared. The Steens Act is now working well and as you intended.
3. If The Steens CMPA becomes a part of the NLCS I believe the
progress you, BLM and all of us has made will began to unravel. I
believe the only measurement we have to validate this is how the NLCS
system and planning and philosophy has negatively impacted early
implementation of the Steens Act and the early workings of the Steens
Mountain Advisory Council.
4. The Steens Act could continue to evolve a new and innovative
way to manage, protect and cooperate on a landscape scale if it is kept
out of the NLCS system. I would suggest that amending fundamental
purpose of 1139/2016 to require all special designations ``to maintain
and enhance the cultural, economic, ecological, and social health'';
and ``to provide for and expand the cooperative management activities
etc.''; and ``to promote viable and sustainable grazing, and recreation
operations on private and public lands''; and ``to conserve, protect
and manage for healthy watersheds and the long-term ecological
integrity''; along with mandating ``The Plan shall provide
coordinationwith State,, county, and private local landowners and the
Burns Paiute Tribe''; and the emphasis of ``Cooperative Management
throughout the Steens Act.
5. The Congressional intent and existing management guidance and
policy will shift on WSAs under the NLCS. Right now grazing levels,
management systems and historical access is protected and provided in
WSAs but ongoing lawsuits and agency policy interpretations will most
likely alter the emphasis of historical use and management to
preservation and elevated emphasis of impacts to wilderness values
which are extremely subjective.
6. Many BLM personnel at the field level believe the mission and
management directive of special designations will shift away from
multiple use and private commercial uses of public lands but few will
step forward because the tenure of NLCS is not adequate to objectively
measure management and public use impacts. The majority of historical
public uses will continually be regulated and restricted and confined
to smaller areas along primary roads causing congestion and an impact
to the public land use by the average family. The track record of most
NLCS units and designations indicates this has already happed in a big
way according to people living within and next to NLCS units.
I encourage you to not go forward with the NLCS system. No matter
how well intentioned the reality of what some want from the NLCS system
will hurt cooperative and innovative management and the fundamentals of
the Steens Act and many other areas.
Sincerely,
Fred I. Otley
______
[The statement submitted for the record by Ms. Capps
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Lois Capps, a Representative
in Congress from the State of California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2016,1 want to thank you for holding a
hearing on this legislation to codify the National Landscape
Conservation System.
The NLCS consists of all areas the BLM administers for conservation
purposes, including national monuments, outstanding natural areas,
wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers and other remarkable
landscapes on our public lands.
The idea behind grouping all of these areas into one system is to
increase public awareness of the importance of these lands. It's also
to highlight how BLM is conserving their cultural, historical,
scientific, and ecological values.
Within my own congressional district, the NLCS encompasses several
nationally significant areas, including the California Coastal Monument
and the Carrizo Plain National Monument.
I have also worked to designate the Piedras Blancas Historic Light
Station--located in my congressional district--as an outstanding
natural area within the NLCS. The House recently approved my
legislation, and I hope it will be signed into law very soon.
As you know, the Interior Department established the NLCS
administratively in 2000. As a result, it does not have the permanence
that it would have if enacted legislatively.
By codifying the NLCS, we'll help increase the attention to these
important, congressionally protected areas. And we'll help ensure that
the system remains a high priority within the BLM.
Mr. Chairman, it's important to note that this bill does not create
any new management authority and does not change how any of the units
in the system are managed. Grazing rights, water rights, and public
access are unchanged.
This bill is needed step toward improving the management of the
lands that comprise the NLCS.
I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership on this issue, and
I hope we will have an opportunity to move this bipartisan bill through
the Committee and House as quickly as possible.
I yield back.
______
Mr. Grijalva.Mr. Young, would you like to make an opening
statement?
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you having the
hearing, especially having the witness from Alaska. There are
some issues about this legislation that I can support but we
are deeply concerned in Alaska and the effect upon agreements
that were reached primarily with native lands and the Alaskan
National Lands Act.
Agreements and deals were cut and made and I am somewhat--
would like you to consider and work with me on trying to make
sure that we don't have to have two bites at the apple that
would directly affect the State of Alaska and directly affect
especially the Native Land Claims Act itself, and that is my
biggest concern right now.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Young, rest assured that it is not the
intent of the legislation to undermine the two Acts that you
mentioned and more than willing and happy to work with you and
your office to clarify and substantiate those two points.
Mr. Young. I thank the gentlemen.
Mr. Grijalva. Let me begin. Thank you very much. It is a
distinguished panel indeed and very happy that you are with us
today. Let me begin with the first panelist, Mr. Bill Meadows,
President of The Wilderness Society. Sir, five minutes of oral
testimony and then whatever, the full text of your testimony
will be made part of the record. Mr. Meadows.
STATEMENT OF BILL MEADOWS, PRESIDENT,
THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee
members. It is a privilege to be here testifying before the
House Natural Resource Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest
and Public Lands on H.R. 2016, the National Landscape
Conservation System Act. I am Bill Meadows, President of The
Wilderness Society. I would like to also ask the committee's
indulgence and enter into the record a letter from a coalition
of 47 organizations in support of this legislation.
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection.
Mr. Meadows. Since 1935 The Wilderness Society has worked
to ensure that future generations will enjoy as we do today the
clean air, water, wildlife, beauty and opportunities for
recreation and renewal that pristine forests, rivers, deserts
and mountains provide. We represent a quarter of a million
Americans throughout the country who are investing their legacy
of wild places. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the
historic importance of the National Landscape Conservation
System Act.
The National Landscape Conservation System is a public
lands system like no other. It is composed of BLM managed land
and waters designated for conservation by Congress or the
President, including national conservation areas, wild and
scenic rivers, as well as national monuments, wilderness areas
and other special places.
These landscapes with innumerable natural and cultural
resource values ensure invaluable educational and recreational
opportunities for current and future generations. The
conservation system provides unique opportunities for solitude
and adventure, where visitors can create their own experiences.
While constituting only 10 percent of the BLM lands and
waters, the system accommodates a third of the BLM recreation
use. The system facilitates diverse recreational and
educational experiences such as famed rafting in California's
north fork of the American River, exploring how ancient
cultures lived on the landscapes in Arizona's Agua Fria
National Monument, hiking on the Continental Divide National
Scenic Trail, mountain biking in Colorado's McInnis Canyons,
and backpacking and wildlife viewing pportunities in the
system's many, many wilderness areas.
Protected areas such as the national conservation areas and
wilderness areas offer many economic benefits to neighboring
communities. Because conservation system visitor centers are
designed to be located in gateway communities, the landscapes
within the system remain protected and surrounding communities
receive the economic benefits of increased visitation to these
wonderful places. The system also provides outstanding
opportunities for research and outdoor education. BLM staff
have shared with us their excitement about the many research
projects that the conservation system lands offer.
The system is also well known for cultural resources
including those in the Canyon of the Ancients National
Monument, which contains the largest concentration of known
archeological sites in the Nation. The BLM's conservation
system also encompasses important wildlife habitat, allowing
for wildlife to thrive in healthy ecosystems. Conservation
system lands and waters provide habitat for many threatened and
endangered species as well. For example, while constituting
only 10 percent of the BLM lands, the conservation system
protects 30 percent of suitable desert tortoise habit on BLM
land, 73 percent of peninsula bighorn sheep critical habitat on
BLM lands, and 54 percent of the California condor range on BLM
lands.
We believe it critical for Congress to acknowledge the
importance of these lands and waters. This legislation will
ensure that the natural and cultural resources for which these
magnificent places were designated will be preserved in
perpetuity for the American people to discover and appreciate.
A diversity of Americans have shown support for these places
and numerous organizations have spoken out to demonstrate their
support.
The Wilderness Society has enjoyed being a leader in the
conservation system alliance, a coalition of more than 50
conservation historic preservation, faith-based recreation and
business groups. These groups represent millions of Americans
Nationwide and together have been working nationally and within
local communities to foster stewardship of the conservation
system.
Seven years ago this month, the Interior Department
administratively designated this unique system of public lands.
I was excited that the BLM was tasked with ensuring that the
crown jewels under their management, their most outstanding
lands and waters would be managed as a system for conversation
purposes. We are delighted today that Congress has the
foresight to ensure permanent protection for these landscapes
through straightforward legislation that will simply give the
system the permanent authorization it deserves.
I again want to thank the committee for discussing this
important legislation and look forward to working with Congress
to marshal the bill through passage. Please let me know if you
need any additional information for the committee. Thank you
again for your foresight, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meadows follows:]
Statement of The Honorable William H. Meadows,
President, The Wilderness Society
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands on
H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act. I am Bill
Meadows, President of The Wilderness Society. Since 1935, The
Wilderness Society has worked to ensure that future generations will
enjoy, as we do today, the clean air and water, wildlife, beauty and
opportunities for recreation and renewal that pristine forests, rivers,
deserts and mountains provide. We represent a quarter of a million
Americans throughout the country who are investing in their legacy of
wild places. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the historic
importance of the National Landscape Conservation System Act.
The National Landscape Conservation System is a public lands system
like no other. It is composed of BLM-managed lands and waters
designated for conservation by Congress or the President, including
National Conservation Areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers, as well as
National Monuments, wilderness areas and other special places. These
landscapes with innumerable natural and cultural resource values ensure
invaluable educational and recreational opportunities for current and
future generations. The Conservation System provides unique
opportunities for solitude and adventure where visitors can create
their own experiences. While constituting only 10% of BLM lands and
waters, the System accommodates a third of BLM's recreation use. The
System facilitates diverse recreational and educational experiences,
such as famed rafting in California's North Fork of the American River,
exploring how ancient cultures lived on the landscape in Arizona's Agua
Fria National Monument, hiking on the Continental Divide National
Scenic Trail, mountain biking in Colorado's McInnis Canyons National
Conservation Area, and backpacking and wildlife viewing opportunities
in the System's many wilderness areas.
Protected areas such as National Conservation Areas and wilderness
areas offer many economic benefits to neighboring communities. Because
Conservation System visitor centers are designed to be located in
gateway communities, the landscapes within the System remain protected
and surrounding communities receive the economic benefits of increased
visitation to these wonderful places. The System also provides
outstanding opportunities for research and outdoor education. BLM staff
have shared with us their excitement about the many research projects
that Conservation System lands offer. The System is also well known for
its cultural resources, including those in Canyons of the Ancients
National Monument, which contains the largest concentration of known
archaeological sites in the nation.
The BLM's Conservation System also encompasses important wildlife
habitat, allowing for wildlife to thrive in healthy ecosystems.
Conservation System lands and waters provide habitat for many
threatened and endangered species as well. For example, while
constituting only 10% of BLM lands, the Conservation System protects
30% of suitable desert tortoise habitat on BLM land, 73% of Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep Critical Habitat on BLM lands, and 54% of the California
Condor range on BLM lands.
We think it critical for Congress to acknowledge the importance of
these lands and waters. This legislation will ensure that the natural
and cultural resources for which these magnificent places were
designated will be preserved in perpetuity for the American people to
discover and appreciate.
A diversity of Americans has shown support for these places, and
numerous organizations have spoken out to demonstrate this support. The
Wilderness Society has enjoyed being a leader in the Conservation
System Alliance, a coalition of more than fifty conservation, historic
preservation, faith-based, recreation and business groups. These groups
represent millions of Americans nationwide and together, have been
working nationally and within local communities to foster stewardship
of the Conservation System.
Seven years ago this month, the Interior Department
administratively designated this unique system of public lands. I was
excited that the BLM was tasked with ensuring that the crown jewels
under their management, their most outstanding lands and waters, would
be managed as a system for conservation purposes. We are delighted
today that the Congress has the foresight to ensure permanent
protection for these landscapes through straightforward legislation
that will simply give the System the permanent authorization it
deserves.
I again want to thank the committee for discussing this important
legislation and look forward to working with Congress to marshal the
bill towards passage. Please be sure to let me know if you need
additional information that could be of assistance. Thank you again for
your foresight in discussing this legislation, and for the opportunity
to testify before the committee.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6021.001
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6021.002
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6021.003
.epsMr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir. Let me turn to Mr.
Richard Moe, President, National Trust for Historic
Preservation. Welcome, and your testimony, sir.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MOE, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. Moe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for holding
this hearing and for inviting the National Trust to testify
here today in support of your bill, H.R. 2016, a bill that
would recognize the National Landscape Conservation System,
lands that really comprise the crown jewels of the BLM
inventory. The National Trust is very pleased and grateful that
you, Mr. Chairman, together with Representatives Bono, Renzi,
and Moran, are leading the effort to codify this system.
The National Landscape Conservation System, as my
colleague, Mr. Meadows, has said, is a network of last places,
the very last places where you can experience the history and
the wild beauty of the American West. It brings together the
crown jewels, literally, of BLM's 264 million acres. With more
than 866 individual units, it comprises 10 percent of the total
land administered by BLM. And I think it is fair to say that in
terms of the natural and cultural resources contained, these
are the most significant lands in BLM.
H.R. 2016 is very simple legislation that would codify the
system which has been administratively supported by recent
Presidents but has not yet received a congressional stamp of
approval, which is what this bill would do. And I am very
pleased to know the Bush administration is supporting this
legislation.
The system currently exists as an administrative function,
which could be changed under any future administration. And
codification would provide it with the additional recognition
that it deserves. Americans, I believe, want these conservation
lands preserved, but only Congress can give them the official
stamp of approval that they need and deserve. Codification will
recognize a single unifying system to which these extraordinary
lands will belong, raising the profile of these outstanding
areas instead of each unit standing alone.
Like many Americans, I thought for a long time that
historic preservation was just about saving grand historic and
architectural landmarks. There is no question that is a large
part of what preservation is about. But the more time I have
spent in the West, and I have spent a good deal of time in the
West, the more I have realized that preservation is about more
than that. It is also about the very first imprints that man
made on the land, the rock art, the cliff dwellings, the
pueblos, the kivas, and the other remnants of the earliest
civilizations that flourished there. These cultural resources
represent the opening chapters in the story of what has become
America. They represent the heritage of the first Americans,
and thus are part of our heritage as well.
Mr. Chairman, so I urge your support for this important
legislation. Official statutory status would raise the
recognition of these unique cultural and natural resources.
That does not mean that the BLM must abandon its traditional
multiple-use mandate. On the contrary, clearly, people should
continue to have wide access to them and be able to enjoy them.
In fact, codification of the conservation system would not
impact private in-holdings or lands managed by other agencies,
would not alter existing oil and gas or grazing leases or other
grandfathered uses, would not limit public access or activities
such as fishing and hunting, or in any way affect units that
are co-managed with other Federal agencies, as only BLM lands
would be included in the system. And it would not affect the
underlying enabling legislation for individual units.
The National Landscape Conservation System includes
landscapes that allow us to see the West through the eyes of
the original inhabitants or as it appeared to the first
European explorers and settlers. They also include the tangible
remains of thousands of years of human interaction with the
land, ranging from the ruins of prehistoric Native American
pueblos to the wagon ruts left by western-bound pioneers and
the remnants of mine shafts and farmhouses left by those who
sought to make a living out of the rock and soil of the Western
frontier.
Whether natural or cultural, these resources open windows
to the past, offering a glimpse, often the only glimpse
available to us, of the people who were here before us, the
land they found here, and the lives they lived on.
H.R. 2016 will permanently establish perhaps the last great
American system of protected lands. By enacting codifying
legislation, Congress will ensure that the systems will be
permanent and an enduring legacy of the West's natural and
cultural heritage for future generations.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moe follows:]
Statement of Richard Moe, President,
The National Trust for Historic Preservation
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Richard
Moe and I am the President of the National Trust for Historic
Preservation. I am speaking to you today in support of H.R. 2016, a
bill that would recognize the National Landscape Conservation System,
lands that comprise the crown jewels of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) inventory. The National Trust is very pleased and grateful to the
Chairman and Representatives Bono, Moran and Renzi for leading the
effort to codify the Conservation System and I urge the Members of the
Sub-Committee to support this measure.
Background on the National Trust
For more than 50 years, the National Trust for Historic
Preservation has been helping to protect the nation's historic
resources. Chartered by Congress in 1949, the National Trust is a
private, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to protecting the
irreplaceable. Recipient of the National Humanities Medal, the Trust
leads a vigorous preservation movement that is saving the best of our
past for the future by preserving America's diverse historic places and
revitalizing communities. Its Washington, DC headquarters staff, six
regional offices and 29 historic sites work with the Trust's quarter-
million members and thousands of local community groups in all 50
states. Its mission has expanded since its founding in 1949 just as the
need for historic preservation has grown. When historic places are
destroyed or allowed to deteriorate we lose a part of our past forever.
H.R. 2016 and the Conservation System
H.R. 2016 provides an important Congressional stamp of approval by
affording the BLM's National Landscape Conservation System permanent
statutory recognition. Like many Americans, I thought for a long time
that historic preservation was just about saving grand historic and
architectural landmarks. There is no question that this is part of what
preservation is all about. But the more time I have spent in the West,
the more I have realized that preservation is much more than that. It
is also about the very first imprints that man made on the land--the
rock art, cliff dwellings, pueblos, kivas and other remnants of the
earliest civilizations that flourished there. These cultural resources,
mostly found in the West, represent the opening chapters in the story
of America. They represent the heritage of the first Americans and thus
are part of our heritage as well. Not all of these tremendous places
are in the Conservation System's inventory, but those that are
represent the top tier of this country's acreage under the Bureau of
Land Management.
The National Landscape Conservation System is a network of the last
places where you can experience the history and wild beauty of the
American West. The 26-million-acre System was established by the
Secretary of the Interior in 2000 to recognize and protect the best of
the lands and waters managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The
Conservation System brings together the crown jewels of BLM's 264
million acres--specifically, all the agency's National Monuments,
National Conservation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic
and Historic Trails, Wilderness, and Wilderness Study Areas. With more
than 866 individual units, it comprises 10 percent of the land managed
by the BLM.
Formal codification would provide the System with the heightened
recognition it deserves. Without authorization, there currently is no
guarantee that the System will be around five years from now.
Icons of the American Experience
This month we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the founding of
Jamestown, the first permanent settlement in English-speaking America.
But, for thousands of years before the first Europeans arrived, there
were people on this continent who represented highly developed
civilizations and who were proficient in art, architecture, agriculture
and astronomy. These were the first Americans, and their story is also
part of our common heritage. The National Landscape Conservation System
contains a number of important areas rich in artifacts from these
civilizations. Let me share with you two examples.
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument lies in the far
southwestern corner of Colorado. The mesas and canyons of this place
encompass an incredibly rich collection of archaeological sites. More
than 6,000 have been recorded, and thousands more are believed to
exist--up to 300 sites per square mile in some areas, the highest known
density in the United States. The full sweep of the region's history
can be traced in this landscape--from the early ranchers whose
descendants still live here, all the way back to the ancient hunters
who crossed the area 10,000 years ago. I wish every American could
experience Canyons of the Ancients. There is no other place like it.
The Agua Fria National Monument is located 40 miles north of
Phoenix. While it's not nearly as large as Canyons of the Ancients,
Agua Fria is abundantly rich in archaeological resources, including
more than 130 pueblo sites, stone forts, terraced agricultural fields
and a stunning array of rock art. Scientists have linked many of these
sites to the Perry Mesa Tradition, a previously unknown culture that
flourished here from 500 to 700 years ago. More recent history is
reflected in the remnants of Basque sheepherders' camps, mining
structures and military sites--all scattered across a landscape that
makes the monument a scenic, as well as cultural, treasure.
I urge your support of the legislation before the Subcommittee
today. Congress should codify the Conservation System. Official
statutory basis would raise recognition of the unique archeological and
cultural resources of the Conservation System. This does not mean that
BLM must abandon its traditional multiple-use mandate. Clearly, people
should have wide access to BLM lands and be able to enjoy them. In
fact, Codification of the Conservation System would not impact private
in-holdings or lands managed by other agencies; alter existing oil and
gas or grazing leases or other grandfathered uses; limit public access
or activities such as fishing and hunting; or in any way affect units
that are co-managed with other federal agencies, as only BLM lands
would be included in the System. It would not affect the underlying
enabling legislation for individual units.
Conclusion
The National Landscape Conservation System includes landscapes that
allow us to see the West through the eyes of its original inhabitants,
or as it appeared to the first European explorers and settlers. It also
includes the tangible remains of thousands of years of human
interaction with the land, ranging from the ruins of prehistoric Native
American pueblos to the wagon ruts left by westward-bound pioneers and
the remnants of mineshafts and farmhouses left by those who sought to
make a living out of the rock and soil of the Western frontier. Whether
natural or cultural, these resources open windows to the past, offering
a glimpse--often the only glimpse available to us--of the people who
were here before us, the land they found here and the lives they lived
on it.
H.R. 2016 will Congressionally recognize perhaps the last great
American system of protected lands. By enacting codifying legislation,
Congress will ensure the System's permanence and an enduring legacy of
the West's natural and cultural heritage for future generations.
______
Mr. Grijalva. And let me turn to Ms. Cindy Deacon Williams,
Director of Aquatic Science and Education Programs, National
Center for Conservation Science and Policy. Welcome. And your
testimony, please.
STATEMENT OF CINDY DEACON WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF AQUATIC SCIENCE
AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR CONSERVATION
SCIENCE AND POLICY
Ms. Williams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the Subcommittee. I am delighted to be here today to
talk to you about this important piece of legislation. I will
make four points in today's testimony.
First, as you heard from almost everyone else who has been
up here so far today, the lands encompassed within the
conservation system have great value. I would like to make the
point that they also have not just great value in general, but
that they have great scientific value, and that that value is
intrinsic. They include many important cultural, archeological,
social, paleontological, geological, and biological resources.
Extensive evidence of 13,000 years of human history can be
found on BLM-administered lands. And scientific study of these
resources is providing important insights into how people,
ranging from the prehistoric native nations to the 19th and
20th century pioneers, lived on and with the land. Study of
fossils found on BLM-administered lands is providing insight
into the evolution of plant and animal communities and the
responses of ecosystems to global changes. Those insights are
likely to be of use as we face those global changes that are
looming in our future.
As a biologist I, of course, am most impressed by the
numerous unique plant and animal species that are found on BLM-
administered lands, including both at-risk species and
ecosystems and those that are not at any risk at all.
I will lean a little bit on my own back yard, on the
Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. We have recently documented
114 different species of butterfly on the Cascade-Siskiyou. And
that is a concentration unheard of anywhere else in North
America. We have also identified four freshwater mollusks, and
found the highest concentration of macroinvertebrates in the
whole Cascade area. What is a macroinvertebrate? Those are
those water bugs that, if you are an angler, you are
particularly interested in because of their role in the food
chain for the fish that you like to catch. This amazingly high
diversity of macroinvertebrates found 62 different species in a
single ripple. I have been a biologist and a fisheries
biologist for 30 years and have never, ever come across
anything like that elsewhere.
The second point that I would like to make is that the
design concept of the conservation system increases the
scientific value that is inherent in those lands. It now seems
just common sense that important archeological sites can't be
understood if they are limited to a half-acre enclosure in a
parking lot, much less likely that they would survive the
attention of vandals.
No one would expect a critical population of plants to
survive if it is surrounded by thousands of acres that are
infested with an exotic invasive weed. Seven years ago, with
the administrative establishment of the National Landscape
Conservation System, that truth that has now been grounded
solidly in conservation biology was recognized. And the system
was set up administratively with the idea that it should
protect and allow an expansion of human knowledge through the
study of entire ecosystems and archeological communities. This
was a fundamental shift that is very, very important from a
scientific perspective.
The third point that I would like to make is that the
conservation system does provide significant opportunities to
increase the sum of human scientific knowledge. It provides us
opportunities both to investigate fundamental questions that
are core to our way of dealing with the world in front of us
over the long term, and also to conduct applied research that
is immediately relevant to management on Federal lands. On the
Cascade-Siskiyou we are engaged in an extensive collaborative
research opportunity right now that involves a total of 25
different research studies, some of them that our organization
is leading, and some that are being led by the BLM, but all of
which are cooperative in nature.
The fourth point is that congressional recognition of the
conservation system will improve the scientific returns to
society from these lands. Permanency will trigger a maturation
of the national perspective that over time will make it
possible for the conservation system to be recognized within
the agency as an important and cherished responsibility.
A systemwide viewpoint also is likely to trigger
researchers to tackle broader issues like climate change and
invasive species, and encourage managers to share and apply the
scientific results on an agencywide basis. Permanency also is,
frankly, likely to increase the attention that is paid to these
resources by researchers. There is no question that the
National Landscape Conservation System contains resources of
scientific interest, and securing permanent protection will
return those values to society at a much increased rate.
A wise man once noted that if what is unique about being
human is our ability to know, then every time we destroy an
opportunity to know, we destroy an opportunity to be human.
Permanent protection of the landscape system is an important
step not only for conservation of the resources but for
protecting our opportunity to be human. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]
Statement of Cindy Deacon Williams, M.S., Senior Scientist and Director
of Aquatic Science, and Conservation Education Programs, National
Center for Conservation Science & Policy
Chairman Grijalva and committee members, thank you for this
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2016, a bill that would
acknowledge the national significance of scientifically important lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by recognizing the
National Landscape Conservation System to conserve, protect, and
restore them.
My name is Cindy Deacon Williams. I am Director of Aquatic Science
and Conservation Education Programs for the National Center for
Conservation Science & Policy, a science-based conservation
organization in Ashland, OR. I have been a research scientist and
policy analyst for nearly 30 years, including a four-year period in the
mid-1990s during which I worked for the USDA Forest Service on federal
lands management programs and policies. My organization currently is
completing seven scientific studies on the Cascade-Siskiyou National
Monument, a unit of the Conservation System located in southwest
Oregon.
I will make four main points in today's testimony:
1. The lands encompassed within Conservation System have great
intrinsic scientific value,
2. The design of the Conservation System increases its scientific
value,
3. The Conservation System provides significant opportunities to
increase our scientific knowledge,
4. Congressional recognition of the System, with a coherent
National purpose, will increase the scientific returns to society from
these lands.
The 26-million-acre National Landscape Conservation System Encompasses
Many Resources with Outstanding Scientific Value
Despite a past reputation as the ``lands no one wanted,'' the lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management include many important
cultural, archeological, social, paleontological, geological and
biological resources. When it was administratively created in 2000, the
National Landscape Conservation System collected some of the most
notable of these lands (Vanasselt and Layke 2006). For example:
Cultural: Extensive evidence of 13,000 years of human
history can be found on BLM-administered lands. Scientific examination
and study of these resources is providing insight into how people,
ranging from prehistoric Native Americans to 19th and 20th century
pioneers, lived on and with the land. Archaeologists estimate there are
likely to be 4.5 million cultural sites on all BLM-administered lands.
Paleontological: Fossils found on BLM-administered lands
provide important insight into the evolution of plant and animal
communities, the systematic relationship between species, and the
response of ecosystems to global changes in their environment. The
understandings gained from study of these paleontological resources can
help us predict impacts and responses likely to occur in our future and
that of our grandchildren in the face of current global changes.
Biological: Numerous unique plant and animal species are
found on BLM-administered lands, including 228 plant and animal species
listed as threatened or endangered and more than 1,500 additional
``sensitive'' species that are at some risk due to a reduction in the
number of individuals or a naturally limited distribution. In addition,
BLM administers 144,000 miles of streamside riparian areas and 13
million acres of wetlands--providing water resources that hold an
especially critical place in the ecological web of life, supporting
hundreds of other species not at risk of extinction, such as pronghorn
antelope, mule deer, bighorn sheep, elk, and numerous birds.
The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument--an illustration of the
biological richness to be found within the Conservation System.
As a biologist, I must admit that my particular interest lies with
exploring and understanding the wealth of biological resources to be
found on Conservation System lands. In my own backyard, the nearly
53,000 acre Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument has many nationally
unique fish and wildlife communities, amply illustrating the biological
richness to be found on Conservation System lands.
This Monument is considered a unique ``biological crossroads,''
linking the botanically rich Siskiyous with the Cascades. It is home to
rare fish and aquatic species, some of which only recently have been
discovered by scientists. The Monument's rich botanical diversity is
associated with an extraordinary richness of butterflies unique in
western North America, 114 species recently were recorded by
scientists. The Monument also supports notable aquatic diversity, with
nine freshwater mollusks whose entire distribution is limited primarily
to the Monument's springs and streams (Frest and Johannes 1999) and, on
Dutch Oven Creek where 62 different taxa were collected from a single
site, a higher diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (insects,
snails, etc.) than previously had been recorded from anywhere in the
Klamath Mountains Ecoregion.
The ``Design Concept'' of the National Landscape Conservation System
Increases Its Scientific Value
When the National Landscape Conservation System was
administratively created in June of 2000, it was established with the
idea that the Conservation System should protect--and allow an
expansion of human knowledge through the study of--entire ecosystems
and archeological communities. This was a fundamental departure from
the past practice of protecting and studying small tracts that
encompass the core portion of the object of interest while excluding
critical, albeit more peripheral, components.
This founding concept reflects experience with the frustrations of
past attempts to protect important cultural and scientific resources
for posterity. In retrospect, it appears to be ``just common sense''
that an important archeological site cannot be understood if it stands
as a 1/2-acre exclosure in a parking lot, and reasonable to assume such
a site would be unlikely to survive the propensity of vandals to cause
havoc. Similarly, no one today would be likely to expect a critical
population of native plants to survive and continue to support its
dependent butterfly populations if it is surrounded by a thousand acres
overrun by an invasive exotic weed.
This important sum of the parts strategy also demonstrates
understandings regarding the importance of an ecosystem approach that
were gained from developments within the field of conservation biology.
We now know that subpopulations of a species are unlikely to survive
through time if they are artificially isolated from other portions of
the species. Maintaining connections between subpopulations is vital as
it provides an important, almost strategic insurance policy for species
that might otherwise become extirpated as a result of flood, fire,
hurricane, drought or other natural or human-caused disturbance (Hanski
and Gilpin 1997, Williams and Williams 2004)--when isolated, the
threats facing a population are more likely to ``overwhelm in detail.''
My childhood and early professional years were colored by a perfect
illustration of how expensive it can be to think too narrowly. In 1952,
President Harry Truman designated Devils Hole, located in southwestern
Nevada, as a disjunct part of Death Valley National Monument. The
proclamation included a water-filled cavern--sporting unique geological
characteristics and a species of fish found nowhere else in the world--
and a mere 40 acres that were carefully ``confined to the smallest
area'' around Devils Hole where the President could draw a line. In the
1960s, the BLM disposed of most federal land in the area. Subsequent
battles to conserve the biological and geological objects of scientific
interest in Devils Hole from the ecological impact of successive
agricultural and residential development were inevitable--the original
designation focused on the core feature of the ecosystem and not the
ecosystem itself. Ultimately, Congress authorized purchase of 13,320
acres from private willing sellers and the incorporation of additional
acres still administered by the BLM to encompass the ecologically and
hydrologically connected Ash Meadows area into a coherent ecosystem
management unit to be managed in conjunction with the originally
designated 40 acres immediately around Devils Hole; a step not
recognized as necessary to preserve and learn from the ecosystem's
geological and biological resources. When all was said and done, the
expansion to incorporate Devils Hole's critical peripheral components
made the exercise unnecessarily costly, both socially and financially,
and nearly led to the extinction of the fish (Deacon and Williams
1991).
Fortunately, the original administrative concept for the National
Landscape Conservation System explicitly recognized these potential
administrative and ecological hurdles. Wisely, the proposed legislation
is drafted so as to permanently honor that science-based design concept
in its establishment of the Conservation System.
The Lands Within the National Landscape Conservation System Provide
Significant Opportunities to Increase our Scientific Knowledge
The wide range of cultural, archeological, social, paleontological,
geological and biological resources within the Conservation System,
aptly acknowledged as representing some of the nation's crown jewels,
provide many research opportunities, including:
Options to examine fundamental questions and generate
answers to underlying questions of interest and value to society's
understanding of the world, and
Opportunities to conduct applied research designed to
answer questions relevant to improving management of other federal
lands.
Research currently occurring on Conservation System lands touches
upon geology and paleontology; hydrology and climate; restoration and
rangeland health; archaeology; conservation education; sustainable
architecture; public involvement and partnerships; pinyon-juniper
woodlands ecosystem dynamics and vegetative management; native plants;
exotic cheatgrass propagation; and groundwater, water quality, and
aquatic ecosystems. Some of the fundamental research is unraveling
ancient stories set in the world of dinosaurs; other research is
exploring the results of movement of ancient waters through red rock
sandstone and is finding analogs to hematite concretions on Mars. Some
of the applied research is examining socio-economic trends and
transitions, other research looks at the role of climate and land use
on ecosystem dynamics, the impact of past management practices, and
trends in recreational impacts in the backcountry and dispersed areas.
In all, the amount of information shared, knowledge gained, and
understanding secured due to scientific investigations on Conservation
System lands--including both that rooted in the scientific world and
that anchored in differences of social perspective--is impressive and
has contributed to improvements in management of federal lands and
helped foster scientific and community partnerships. And, those
benefits continue to accrue as the sharing of information, knowledge,
and understanding grows.
In southwestern Oregon, we hope to secure the benefits that accrue
from shared scientific knowledge and understanding--that is, improved
resource management informed by a shared, credible information base--as
a result of extensive focused research now occurring on the Cascade-
Siskiyou National Monument.
Several years ago, as part of an effort to foster collaborative
research, the BLM has been conducting 18 field studies and monitoring
projects on the Cascade-Siskiyou. In addition, from 2003-06 the World
Wildlife Fund's Klamath-Siskiyou Regional Field Office coordinated a
multi-taxa collaborative investigation of the Monument's objects of
biological interest. That work since has been transferred to the
National Center for Conservation Science & Policy for completion. Our
studies are focused on:
Bird monitoring, with stations along 25 point count
routes in mixed conifer and oak woodlands;
Small-mammals, with 16 study sites in mixed conifer and
oak woodlands;
Aquatic snails, with distributional analysis examining 57
springs and seeps;
Stream and riparian habitat, water temperature, and
aquatic invertebrates, with multiple sites at six creeks (including
Dutch Oven, East Fork Camp, Jenny, Keene, Mill, and South Fork Keene);
Greene's Mariposa lily, with examination of more than 80
population clusters in oak woodlands;
Butterfly richness and composition, with 27 transects in
mixed conifer and oak woodlands; and
Natural ecosystem dynamics.
Once the results of these 25 research projects complete scientific
peer-review, they will comprise the most comprehensive scientific
understanding of an ecosystem ever enjoyed by a BLM manager, the
scientific community, and the public.
Providing Permanent Protection to the Conservation System Will Increase
the Value of These Resources to Society
H.R. 2016 will provide critical and long overdue congressional
recognition for the National Landscape Conservation System.
Importantly, this legislation will establish a coherent, much-needed
system-wide identity. Permanency undoubtedly will trigger the
maturation of a national perspective for the Conservation System that
is ``bigger'' than the BLM districts that are separately charged with
management of individual units.
An ``enlarged'' system-wide perspective will have subtle impacts on
BLM field managers and their staff that, over time, will make it
possible for the Conservation System to be recognized within the agency
as an important and cherished responsibility. From a scientific
perspective, a system-wide viewpoint likely will induce researchers to
examine broad issues (e.g., climate change, invasive species) and
encourage managers to share and apply the results of these scientific
findings on an agency-wide basis--as well as allow researchers and
managers to continue to benefit from the pursuit of answers to unit-
specific research questions.
Finally, the permanent establishment of the Conservation System is
likely to increase the attention paid to the lands by research
institutions, researchers, policy-makers and the general public--all of
which are likely to create a circumstance in which society as a whole
will receive a greater benefit.
Conclusion
The National Landscape Conservation System contains resources of
national scientific importance. Securing permanent recognition of the
Conservation System is critical to ensuring these initial steps will
continue to accrue benefits to the BLM and the nation. With permanent
recognition we will have an opportunity to enjoy and learn the most we
can from these natural and cultural treasures.
A wise man once noted that if what is unique about being human is
our ability to know, then every time we destroy an opportunity to know,
we destroy an opportunity to be human. Permanent protection of the
National Landscape Conservation System is an important step, not only
in conservation of the valuable cultural and scientific resources found
on Conservation System lands, but also in protecting the opportunity
for our species to be human.
Literature Cited
Deacon, J.E. and C.D. Williams. 1991. Ash Meadows and the Legacy of the
Devils Hole Pupfish. Pp. 69-92, In: W.L. Minckley and J.E.
Deacon, eds. Battle Against Extinction: native fish management
in the American West. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, AZ.
Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1999. Field guide to survey and manage
freshwater mollusk species. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon
State Office, Portland, OR 117 pp.
Hanski, I.A. and M.E. Gilpin. 1997. Metapopulation Biology: ecology,
genetics, and evolution. Academic Press.
Vanasselt, W. and C. Layke. 2006. Protecting the Best of the West.
Issues in Science and Technology. Spring 2006: 43-52.
Williams, J.E. and C.D. Williams. 2004. Oversimplified habitats and
oversimplified solutions in our search for sustainable
freshwater fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 43:
67-89.
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me now turn to Mr. Randy Gray, former
mayor of Great Falls, Montana. Welcome, sir, Mr. Mayor, and
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RANDY GRAY, FORMER MAYOR,
GREAT FALLS, MONTANA
Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thanks
for the occasion to testify before this subcommittee on H.R.
2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act.
I am Randy Gray. I am a resident and former three-term
mayor of the great city of Great Falls, Montana. I was also a
city commissioner of that town, and I have served as a trustee
for the CM Russell Museum in that same town. And I have helped
form, and, for many years, served on the board of the Great
Falls Development Authority, which is an economic--regional
economic development entity in our area that has generated a
substantial amount of economic opportunity throughout the north
central Montana area.
Great Falls is a wonderful town that is fortunate to have a
number of these special places protected by the National
Landscape Conservation System close by. They are in our back
yard. We are proud to be a gateway community for the BLM's
conservation system, and appreciate the opportunity to comment
on the significance of this proposed act.
The National Landscape Conservation System is comprised of
lands and waters under the BLM's management that have been
congressionally and Presidentially designated, including
national monuments, national scenic and historic trails,
wilderness areas, and other important areas. These landscapes
have many essential values, including opportunities for
scientific research and education, recreation, and, yes, local
economic benefit. These are places where people in my town and
other Western communities can enjoy occasions as simple as
family picnics and historical exploration, and as exciting as
multi-day float trips and backpacking adventures.
Residents of our town and, importantly, visitors from all
over the State of Montana, from all over the country, and in
fact from all over the world, can go out to these places to
enjoy themselves, discover themselves, get lost in the
protected areas that allow for visitors to experience and study
the American West as it was viewed by America's first residents
and explorers.
I would like to take this opportunity to offer my personal
perspective on what makes the BLM's conservation system an
invaluable benefit to my city and other gateway communities
across the West. We are lucky enough to have three conservation
system units in our vicinity: the Wild and Scenic Missouri
River, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, and the
Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument. The river and trail
pass through my community, and the monument is located within a
short drive of my community. The Nation recently celebrated the
bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's famed expedition across
America, and Great Falls was a proud host of one of the 10
national signature events for the Lewis and Clark bicentennial
celebration. That celebration brought vast numbers of tourists
through our town and visitors. Today visitors to the Missouri
River can experience the same rugged river and stunning vistas
noted by Lewis and Clark on their epic journey.
I am myself both a hunter and a canoeist, and I personally
enjoy these areas that I just spoke of. They are our national
and historic treasures. And many other people in my community
also enjoy those amenities. These special places have made
Great Falls an attractive community for people to establish
homes and businesses. The proximity of conservation system
lands and waters makes our town an attractive location for
businesses and residents looking to enjoy our quality of life.
These protected areas have been important to diversifying the
economy of north central Montana, and have helped make our
State an attractive place to live.
In my time as mayor, it became apparent to me that these
communities that are close to these sort of natural and
historic treasures have enjoyed economic prosperity. And as
mayor, many residents of our town discussed with me the
benefits of these places to our own local economy. While we
continue to benefit from important traditional resource-
dependent industries, our economy has been diversified by
tourism focused around conservation system lands and waters.
Very importantly, and perhaps more importantly, well-paying
service sector jobs are brought by businesses attracted to the
labor pool that is comprised of those who choose to settle near
these natural amenities. These jobs ensure that our community
can enjoy suitable--or, pardon me, sustainable economic
prosperity, and that our children will benefit from a diverse
local economy where employers and employees are equally
attracted to our natural and historic resources.
In an extensive academic study completed in 2004, the
Sonoran Institute determined that personal income, adjusted for
inflation, grows faster in counties with a higher percentage of
public land ownership, such as BLM or Forest Service lands, as
compared to counties with a much smaller percentage of their
land base in public ownership. Furthermore, Western counties
with public lands protected from development show a greater
increase in personal income. The study determined that counties
where more than 60 percent of the Federal public lands are in
some sort of a protected status, i.e. national park, national
monument, have grown 66 percent faster from 1970 to 2000 than
counties where the same percentage of public lands had no
permanent protected status.
The National Landscape Conservation System Act is
straightforward legislation that will simply ensure that these
lands and waters have the permanent recognition they deserve.
Congress has the opportunity to ensure that future generations
of Montanans and other Americans can enjoy the unique
experiences of the conservation system and the economic
opportunities they create.
As the legacy of President Teddy Roosevelt has
demonstrated, permanent recognition for protected public lands
has proven time and time again to be of great public benefit,
and a forward-looking decision that future generations will
thank us for.
I want to thank the committee again for considering this
important legislation, and hope that Congress can shepherd the
bill forward toward passage. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify on this bill.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:]
Statement of Randy Gray
Thank you for the occasion to testify before the House Natural
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands on
H.R. 2016, the National Landscape Conservation System Act. I am Randy
Gray, resident and former mayor of Great Falls, Montana. I was also a
city commissioner, trustee to the CM Russell Museum, and helped form
and for many years served on the board of the Great Falls Development
Authority, a regional economic development entity that has generated
economic opportunity throughout the Great Falls trade region.
Great Falls is a wonderful town that is fortunate to have a number
of special places protected by the National Landscape Conservation
System close by. We are proud to be a gateway community for the BLM's
Conservation System and appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
significance of the National Landscape Conservation System Act.
The National Landscape Conservation System is comprised of lands
and waters under the BLM's management that have been congressionally
and presidentially designated, including National Monuments, National
Scenic and Historic Trails, wilderness areas and other important
places. These landscapes have many essential values including
opportunities for scientific research, education, recreation, and local
economic benefits. These are places where people in Great Falls and
other western communities can enjoy occasions as simple as family
picnics and historical exploration and as exciting as multi-day float
trips and backpacking adventures. Residents of our town and,
importantly, visitors from around Montana, the country and the world go
to enjoy themselves, discover themselves, and get lost in protected
areas that allow for visitors to experience and study the American West
as it was viewed by America's first residents and explorers.
I would like to take this opportunity to offer my personal
perspective on what makes the BLM's Conservation System an invaluable
benefit to my city and other gateway communities. We are lucky enough
to have three Conservation System units in our vicinity: the Wild and
Scenic Missouri River, the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, and
the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument. The river and trail
pass through our community and the Monument is located within a short
drive. These outstanding resources allow not only for recreation, but
for exploration of our nation's history. The nation recently celebrated
the bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's famed expedition through the
area, and Great Falls was proud host of one of the ten national Lewis
and Clark signature events, which brought a number of visitors through
town. Today, visitors to the Missouri River can experience the same
rugged river and stunning vistas noted by Lewis and Clark on their epic
journey. It truly is both wild and scenic. I am both a hunter and
canoeist and enjoy these natural and historical treasures myself, along
with so many in our community.
These special places have made Great Falls an attractive community
for people to establish homes and businesses and to enjoy their
benefits and experience the big sky country as it was meant to be. The
proximity of Conservation System lands and waters makes our town an
attractive location for businesses and residents looking to enjoy our
quality of life. These protected areas have been important to
diversifying the economy of north central Montana and have helped make
our state an attractive place to live. In my time as mayor, it became
apparent to me that communities such as mine closest to these natural
and historical treasures have enjoyed economic prosperity. And as
mayor, many residents discussed with me the benefits of these places to
the local economy. While we continue to benefit from important
traditional resource-dependent industries, our economy has been
diversified by tourism focused around Conservation System lands and
waters. Very importantly, well-paying service sector jobs are brought
by businesses attracted to the labor pool that chooses to settle near
these amenities. These jobs ensure that our community can enjoy
sustainable economic prosperity and that our children will benefit from
a diverse local economy where employers and employees are equally
attracted to our natural and historical resources.
In an extensive academic study complete in 2004, the Sonoran
Institute determined that personal income, adjusted for inflation,
grows faster in counties with a higher percentage of public land
ownership, such as BLM or Forest Service lands, as compared to counties
with a much smaller percentage of their land base in public ownership.
Furthermore, western counties with public lands protected from
development show a greater increase in personal income. The study
determined that ``counties where more than 60 percent of the federal
public lands are in protected status (...National Parks...National
Monuments, etc.) have grown 66 percent faster from 1970 to 2000 than
counties where the same percentage of public land had no permanent
protective status.''
The National Landscape Conservation System Act is straightforward
legislation that will simply ensure that these lands and waters will
have the permanent recognition they deserve. Congress has the
opportunity to ensure that future generations of Montanans and other
Americans can enjoy the unique experiences of the Conservation System,
and the economic opportunities they offer. As the legacy of President
Teddy Roosevelt has demonstrated, permanent recognition of protected
public lands has proven time and time again to be of great public
benefit, and a forward-looking decision that future generations will
thank us for.
I want to thank the committee again for considering this important
legislation and hope that Congress can shepherd the bill towards
passage. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the
committee on this important bill.4
______
Mr. Grijalva. Let me turn now to Mr. Orie Williams, chief
executive officer of Doyon Limited. Sir, your testimony, and
thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF ORIE WILLIAMS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DOYON
LIMITED
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R.
2016, a bill to establish the National Landscape Conservation
System. I would especially like to thank my Congressman,
Congressman Young, who is the Ranking Republican Member of the
full committee, for his invitation to me to testify.
My name is Orie Williams. I am the CEO of Doyon Limited, an
Alaska Native Regional Corporation, based in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Doyon is one of 13 Alaska National Regional Corporations formed
by Congress under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Doyon has more than 14,000 Alaska Native tribal shareholders,
and the rights to 12.5 million acres of land in the interior of
Alaska. Our mission is to provide economic and social
opportunity for our people, to strengthen our native way of
life, and to protect and enhance our land and resources.
We have worked with Congress and the Federal Government to
meet the economic development promises made in the enactment of
ANCSA in 1971 to settle the claims of Alaska Natives over use
of Alaska lands. Doyon and several of the other corporations
have lands that border on major areas of land covered by this
legislation.
Under the current law, Alaskans would have a right to
access through these areas, including under Title XI of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. These rights
of access meet the promise of ANCSA to provide for economic use
of ANCSA lands. These were hard-won rights, secured by our
Congressman, the Ranking Republican on this committee,
Congressman Young.
In fact, there are several major portions of law, including
the ``No More'' clause in ANILCA, that provides specific rights
that would be affected by this legislation. Under the ``No
More'' clause, the ability of the President to withdraw vast
amounts of Federal lands using monument designation was
prevented by act of Congress. That protection should not be
lost to a locking-in of special management for wilderness study
areas which have never been approved by Congress.
We have a long and positive relationship with Federal land
management agencies. Perhaps because we are interested in
continuing that positive relationship, we are concerned about
the burden placed on the BLM by this legislation. We have no
objection to the current National Landscape Conservation
System, but it is important to note that that is built upon a
recognition that existing law and regulation applicable to each
individual unit shall remain in place.
There is no overriding systemwide standard. The existing
NLCS expressly recognizes that the NLCS does not create any new
legal protections. This guarantee of specific land management
law and regulation is missing from the legislation before this
committee. We understand that the congressional sponsors want
to add a statutory underpinning to the system, but the current
administrative system created by the BLM in 2000 is largely
untested. We have not seen any justification to change the
management laws and regulations over these 800 units that are
currently in the system and provide new and overriding
conservation requirements.
The administration has testified that it supports the
legislation because the legislation recognizes that individual
management standards remain applicable to individual units. We
don't see that language in this bill. It is important to
understand the sweep of this legislation. If enacted without
change, it would cover over 800 separate areas of land,
totaling approximately 50 million acres of land, some of which
has never been designated by Congress for special management.
For a new system of management to apply to these lands, the
public and interested parties in and around these BLM areas
should receive far greater notice that management could be
changed in one bill in Congress.
Millions of people around this country, especially in
Western States, will be affected by this legislation. As land
managers charged with protecting our heritage, our lands, and
providing economic opportunity, we understand the burden of
balancing multiple uses of important lands. In our view, land
management requirements must be clear, and, in almost every
event for Federal lands, should be specified by Congress when
considering the best balance of uses for that particular land
use. It is hard to see that the rules set by section 3 of this
legislation for all the new systems considers what is best for
each land area to be covered by the bill.
Our fundamental concern with H.R. 2016 is that it appears
to set a new land management requirement for the 800 areas
subject to the bill. Subsection 3(c) is simply not clear as to
which laws and regulations apply to Federal lands that would be
within the system. Unlike the current administrative program,
which expressly states that each unit is to be managed under
the laws and regulations applicable to that unit, subsection
3(c) provides no standard for each individual unit or land
area, and instead puts in place a general systemwide standard.
Further, it is not clear if the law and regulation applicable
to any component, such as a wilderness area, should be
applicable to any other unit in the system, such as a monument.
These are drastically different types of units, subject to much
different management.
Congress should not be vague in specifying what is the
management standard. In our view, the current management
standard, one that is applied on a unit-by-unit basis, based on
enacted laws establishing the unit, is the proper standard. If
Congress now intends to provide a new and sweeping standard
applicable to all these lands, it must be clear about that
intent.
Finally, it is very important to clearly specify if and how
existing Federal land management laws are being changed. The
provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 and the major Alaska Lands Acts, ANILCA and ANCSA, were
extremely hard fought and in many cases bargained for here in
Congress, for all stakeholders. The Alaska Native community
gave up many rights and access to traditional lands to reach
agreements on these lands acts. We are now living with and
respecting these laws. Congress should, too. If they are to be
changed, particularly for a large amount of Federal lands, we
believe that it is the duty of Congress to fully inform the
affected communities and consult with tribes and ANCs. Since
that is impossible on short notice, we ask that Congress
respect the hard-fought Alaska lands battles of the past, and
remove Alaska lands from this bill or, at a minimum, provide in
the bill language that the bill does not modify, amend, or
supersede the existing land right uses, requirements, and
responsibilities of FLPMA, ANCSA, or ANILCA.
My time is up. I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Williams follows:]
Statement of Orie Williams, CEO, Doyon Limited
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 2016, a bill to establish the National
Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). I would especially like to thank
my Congressman, Don Young, who is also the Ranking Republican Member of
the Full Committee for his invitation to me to testify today. My name
is Orie Williams, I am the CEO of Doyon Limited, an Alaska Native
Corporation. I appear here today on behalf of Doyon's more than 14,000
members and Tribal shareholders.
Doyon is one of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations
(ANCs), formed under congressional direction of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act. Doyon has more than 14,000 Alaska Native
shareholders, and we are proud of our record on behalf of those
shareholders. Our mission is to provide economic and social opportunity
for our people, to strengthen our Native way of life and to protect and
enhance our land and resources. We have worked with Congress and the
federal government to meet the economic development promises made in
the enactment of ANCSA in 1971 to settle the claims of Alaska Natives
over use of Alaska lands.
Doyon and several of the other Corporations have lands that border
on major areas of land covered by this legislation----the Steese
National Conservation area, the Central Arctic Management Area (which
is a wilderness study area), and several Wild and Scenic Rivers. Under
current law, Alaskans would have a right of access through these areas,
including under Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. These rights of access meet the promise of ANSCA to
provide for economic use of ANCSA lands. These were hard-won rights,
secured by our Congressman, the Ranking Republican of this Committee,
Congressman Young. In fact, there are several major portions of law,
including the ``No More'' clause in ANILCA, that provide specific
rights that would be affected by this legislation. Under the ``No
More'' clause, the ability of the President to withdraw vast amounts of
federal lands using Monument designation was prevented by Act of
Congress. That protection should not be lost to a ``locking in'' of
special management for wilderness study areas, which have never been
approved by Congress.
We have a long and positive relationship with federal land
management agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management. However,
perhaps because we are interested in continuing that positive
relationship, we are concerned about the burden placed on the BLM by
this legislation. We have no objection to the current National
Landscape Conservation System, but it is important to note that that is
built upon a recognition that existing law and regulation applicable to
each individual unit shall remain in place. There is no overriding
``system-wide'' standard. The existing NLCS expressly recognizes that
``the NLCS does not create any new legal protections.'' This guarantee
of specific land management law and regulation is missing from the
legislation before this committee.
We understand that the Congressional sponsors want to add a
statutory underpinning to this system. But the current administrative
system is new since it was created by the BLM in 2000. It is largely
untested. We have not seen any justification to change the management
laws and regulations over these 800 units that are currently in the
administrative system, and provide new and overriding conservation
requirements. The Administration has testified that it supports this
legislation because the legislation recognizes that individual
management standards remain applicable to individual units. We don't
see that language in the bill.
It is important to understand the sweep of this legislation. If
enacted, without change, it would cover over 800 separate areas of
land, totaling approximately 50 million acres of land, some of which
(wilderness study areas and most National Monuments) have never been
designated by Congress for special management. It applies to 161
wilderness areas, totaling more than 6 million acres of land; 600
wilderness study areas, totaling almost 18 million acres; 38 Wild and
Scenic Rivers, covering over 2,000 miles; Ten Historic Trails; 17
National Conservation Areas, totaling 15.4 million acres; 15 national
Monuments, totaling 4.8 million acres, Two National Scenic Trails and a
number of areas called ``outstanding natural areas'', which are
currently not listed in the NLCS. For a new system of management to
apply to these lands, the public and interested parties in and around
these BLM areas should receive far greater notice that management could
be changed in one bill in Congress. Millions of people around this
country, especially in western states, will be affected by this
legislation.
As land managers charged with protecting our heritage, our lands,
and providing economic opportunity, we understand the burden of
balancing multiple uses of important lands. In our view, land
management requirements must be clear, and, in almost every event for
federal lands, should be specified by Congress when considering the
best balance of uses for that particular land area. It is hard to see
that the rules set by section 3 of this legislation for all of the new
system considers what is best for each land area to be covered by the
bill.
Our fundamental concern with H.R. 2016 is that it appears to set a
new land management requirement for the 800+ areas subject to the bill.
Subsection 3c is simply not clear as to which laws and regulations
apply to the federal lands that would be within the new system.
Subsection 3c requires the Secretary to ``manage the system in
accordance with any applicable law or regulation relating to any
component of the system'' and in a manner that protects the values for
which the components of the system were designated. This standard would
inevitably leave the land managers with great uncertainty, and lead
only to prolonged litigation. Unlike the current administrative program
which expressly states that each unit is to be managed under the laws
and regulations applicable to that unit, subsection 3c provides no
standard for each individual unit or land area, and instead puts in
place a general, system-wide standard. Further, it is not clear if the
law and regulation applicable to any component, such as a wilderness
area, should be applicable to any other unit in the system, such as a
Monument. These are drastically different types of units, subject to
much different management. Congress should not be vague in specifying
what is the management standard. In our view, the current management
standard, one that is applied on a unit-by-unit basis, based on enacted
laws establishing the unit, is the proper standard. If Congress now
intends to provide a new and sweeping standard applicable to all of
these lands, it must be clear about that intent.
Finally, it is very important to clearly specify if and how
existing federal land management laws are being changed. The provisions
of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the
major Alaska Lands Acts, ANILCA and ANCSA, were extremely hard fought,
and in many cases, bargained for, here in Congress and with
stakeholders. The Alaska Native community gave up many rights and
access to traditional lands to reach agreement on these Lands Acts. We
are now living with and respecting these laws, Congress should too. If
they are to be changed, particularly for a large amount of federal
lands, we believe that it is the duty of Congress to fully inform the
affected communities. Since that is impossible on short notice, we ask
that Congress respect the hard-fought Alaska lands battles of the past,
and remove Alaska lands from this bill or, at minimum, provide in bill
language that the bill does not modify, amend, or supersede the
existing land use rights, requirements and responsibilities of FLPMA,
ANCSA or ANILCA.
We understand the intent of the sponsors is to provide for a
cohesive system for the BLM, but not undermine or modify FLPMA, ANILCA
or other federal laws. If that is the case, that intent needs to be
more clearly stated in bill language, and to become part of the federal
law. Without a statutory clarification concerning the impact of this
legislation on FLPMA, and rights under other major federal laws such as
the access rights under Title XI of ANILCA, there will be many years of
litigation and uncertainty for the communities and people who live,
work and rely on these areas every day. We ask, respectfully, that the
management standard to be used for lands within the bill recognize and
defer to existing laws applicable to those units. We believe that is
the congressional intent, as we understand it. A simple clarifying
amendment could accomplish that result.
If, on the other hand, the Committee and sponsors seek to change
FLPMA and other federal land management laws on a system-wide basis, we
ask again, respectfully, that you do so only after full notice to
communities around the country which would be impacted by such a
change.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
today. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Members of the
Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Grijalva. And for the questioning, let me turn to our
Ranking Member, Mr. Young, for any questions you might have.
Sir?
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for the
courtesy.
Mr. Williams, thank you for your testimony. You brought out
the points that I mentioned to the Chairman. As this
legislation moves forward, it is crucially important to
recognize the 365 million acres in the State of Alaska; 147
million acres in 1980 was put aside in parks and refuges for
the distinct use, as I heard some of the previous witnesses,
for the wilderness experience. There is 104 million acres that
belong to the State of Alaska. If you add that all up, there is
295 million acres that are now in some form of restriction,
including State parks.
But Mr. Williams brings up a valid point. A lot of these
decisions, especially the Alaska Natives--I was interested in
listening to them talking about the forefathers, and the
pueblos, etc.--we are dealing with live American Natives that
fought the battle for 44 million acres of land. And they
extinguished much of their rights because it was the will of
this Congress, and we made a deal. And I am hoping that we will
listen very carefully to Mr. Williams.
But Mr. Williams, would the legislation, as it is proposed,
make it more difficult to access lands selected by Doyon under
the Settlement Act?
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Congressman. In the areas that are
covered by the bill, there would be a vague new management
standard. The new system standard doesn't say anything about
existing law, and it is not clear enough to guide BLM in
permitting. It would be litigated. It doesn't say anything
about ANCSA or the ANILCA Lands Act.
To use just one example, we chose lands using our rights
under ANCSA that bordered the Forty Mile River area. This was
before Forty Mile even became a Wild and Scenic River. Now, if
this legislation passes, the rights we had guaranteed under
ANCSA and under ANILCA, Title XI of the Lands Act, are not
clearly protected. Please don't leave unclear our rights to
access lands promised under ANCSA.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have a map I would like to add as part
of the record that shows----
Mr. Grijalva. Without objection, it will be submitted to
the Chairman.
Mr. Young. Mr. Williams, is Doyon the only Alaska Native
corporation or Alaska Native Lands Settlement Act that is
affected by this legislation?
Mr. Williams. Thank you for the question, Congressman. No,
Mr. Chairman and Congressman Young; because of the short notice
of this hearing and the steamroller of this bill, we were only
able to get ahold of the 12 ANCSA regional corporation CEOs
groups within the last 24 hours. But within that 24-hour
period, 7 of the 12 regional corporation CEOs have responded
that they believe in my testimony, they support it. I am sure
all the ANCSA CEOs do.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, again thank you, and let me
restate what my biggest concern is. And I don't want to beg the
issue. I was here for the Alaska National Lands Act and not the
Native Land Claims Act itself. That passed in 1971. But they
did reach an agreement as aboriginals. And this bill as
written, he believes, as do the rest of my corporations up
there, my tribes if you want to say, are deeply concerned it
would infringe upon their rights.
Now maybe that is not the intent of the bill, but there are
those in the audience and those with other interest groups that
will litigate. They will sue. And the economic rights of these
people as we granted them, and the right of their culture will
be denied. And that is really the forked-tongue approach that
concerns me.
So as we go through this process, if we can't improve this
legislation, then at least give Alaska a chance to step aside
because--as I mentioned--of those numbers we have, and really
answer that question to my aboriginal people. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Young.
Let me reiterate the opening comments I made, after your
initial comment, that the staff and our office looks forward to
working with you to ensure that the potential conflict that you
see, and is not intended in the legislation, is dealt with.
Thank you.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, before I leave, and I do have to
leave, they are having a birthday party for me. You are invited
to go when this hearing is over if you would like to come by. I
am just reaching maturity age. So I have to go.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Let me just thank the witnesses who are here. I
appreciate your coming, especially at this really late date.
This should have been done like 6 hours ago, and I apologize
for that. I don't know if anyone from the Department of the
Interior is still here. I would just want to express my deep
disappointment in the Department for sending up somebody to
testify on the part of this bill--even though she was willing
to do it--who was clearly in pain, who has suffered an injury.
There are significant questions that need to be answered.
And for the Department not to be able to have someone here who
can actually testify without having to go through those
personal problems is callous on the part of the Department of
the Interior. I don't know why they did it, but I am offended
that they would actually put her in that position, as well as
this committee in that same position.
The other day I had somebody come into my office talking
about No Child Left Behind, one of my other favorite elements
of Congress. And she told me how good it was, because No Child
Left Behind is finally forcing her to deal with minorities in
this particular school district. That is why they want more
money.
And as I was hearing this, I was thinking to myself, you
know, what you are telling me is basically for 30 years you
have done a lousy job or you have ignored your job, and now we
have finally forced you to do what you are supposed to do, and
you want to be rewarded for it. If you were doing your job,
there would be no reason for the bill. Now if we need to force
you to do your job, you shouldn't have the job in the first
place.
This reminds me of the same kind--we have been told over
and over again that this bill will not change any of the
management practices. I agree that that is perhaps the intent
of this bill, and I agree that is a laudatory intent at the
same time. And it also has to come down to the fact that if you
don't change any of the practices, there is no need for the
bill. If you are going to codify something, there has to be
some systemic problem that is prohibiting you from doing what
you want to do, rather than simply having a different name tag
or larger room or some other personal reason for it.
I do want to lay down the marker that I have no personal
problem with creating this as a codified program. I do have
problems with the language that has been initially drafted. I
do agree with the gentleman from Alaska. The language in here
is vague. And even though the intent is not to change any of
the management practices, some of the language in here is
boilerplate language from other elements within the Department
of the Interior, who, with that same language, has been sued
both in 1970 and 1978, and was forced to change their
management styles and practices. Not because of the intent of
Congress or the intent of the program, but because of the
intent of lawsuits. That is why I do say this is a lawsuit
waiting to happen.
And what our intentions are, which I think are laudable, I
am sure the Chairman is honest with his intention, and it is a
laudable intention of not changing the management practices--
will indeed be subject to changes later on unless we clarify
the language that is in this bill and make it specific that
what we intend to do is indeed what we do. And right now this
bill does not have that language in there.
So all your comments, I appreciate them. I don't have any
problems with your comments. I think they are just fine. We
have some wonderful programs that are being administered by the
BLM. They are diverse. Why you want to put all the diverse
things into one common practice is strange, but we are doing
it, and they are doing it in a fairly effective process.
But at the same time, if we do actually codify this
language for this program, then we are opening ourselves up for
changes that will be above and beyond what anyone in this room
claims to do or intends to do or even imagines to be possible.
So I don't really have problems with the scope of this bill or
the direction of this bill. I do have problems with the
verbiage. And if the majority party will work with the
minority, I think we will have a bill that is satisfactory to
everyone involved. But it does depend on what the actual
language is in this particular bill.
I thank you for coming here. I thank you for listening to
me rant. It wasn't my intention of doing that, but someone had
to hear it, and you unfortunately are the last ones in the
room. I yield back.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And I am appreciative
of the closing comment about working on the legislation, and
look forward to it. And let me instruct the court reporter, if
he will, at the end of Mr. Bishop's comments put a question
mark? That way it is consistent with the question.
Mr. Bishop. I will do this legitimately. How are you?
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
Let me, just to make your visit worthwhile, and also for my
edification, ask a couple of questions. Mr. Moe, I have a co-
major in history, and I am proof of the adage that history, if
you don't listen to history it tends to repeat itself. And I
ended up in politics.
But be that as it may, one of the things, and I think NLCS,
because you spoke about it, for a long time I think much of the
history, the focus of the history of this Nation of ours has
been on the European settlement. And as you mentioned, the NLCS
has an opportunity to address that situation and change.
Jamestown is 400 years old. And some of these units, we are
talking about human activity 4,000, 5,000, 6,000--and could you
just expand on that?
Mr. Moe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
expand on that. As a student of history, I commend your insight
for seeing that relevance. I believe the American experience
began in the West. I spent a lot of time in the Four Corners
area of the West, which is probably the richest archeological
part of this country. There are more archeologists in the Four
Corners area of the United States than anyplace in the world
outside of Egypt. That's how rich it is. And the riches that
they are looking for are the signs of the earliest Americans.
You know, some of these great places of the earliest Americans
have been preserved by the National Park Service. And places
like Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon, Hovenweep, other great national
parks. But that's not the full extent of it. There is so much
more in Canyons of the Ancients in southwestern Colorado, in
Agua Fria in your own State, and in other great places. And
some of these are increasingly at risk for a variety of
reasons. And it is important to preserve these places and to
recognize their significance, as this legislation would do, in
order that future Americans can understand that important part
of our history. So that's very much an important part of what
this bill would do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. And, Mr. Meadows, the often
repeated question, concern, and rationale for not needing this
legislation is that if NLCS is already protected under existing
law, what is gained from establishing the NLCS in statute?
Mr. Meadows. I think it is important that Congress
recognize the power and influence it has. And I think the
recognition--the two most important words here, I think, are
``recognition'' and ``permanence.'' recognition that Congress
would give the system is not lost on local communities, it is
not lost on the BLM, it is not lost on those of us who work to
try to protect the conservation values that are represented
throughout these conservation units.
The permanence is really critical, too. While we are not
threatened today with any kind of retrenchment on conservation
landscape--the National Landscape Conservation System--there is
some chance that in the future, a future administration might
not view this system in the same way. And we believe it
important that we put down a recognition that we mark the
importance of this system today. And we thank you and the
committee for being willing to do that.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much.
Ms. Williams, if you don't mind, I am going to submit--I
have a series of questions, but time is pressing for a lot of
reasons.
Ms. Williams. I would be happy to respond to any of your
questions.
Mr. Grijalva. They deal with remote sites and why they are
important in scientific research and various other questions.
So if you don't mind, I will be submitting those questions to
you, and your responses will be part of the record.
Ms. Williams. I would be happy to respond.
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Mayor, back home there are monuments in
the area, southern Arizona, near Tucson where I am from, and
enjoy a great deal of local support. In fact, you know, there
are always efforts to expand, to add to. But beyond that, do
you also hear many times--and one of the witnesses that had to
leave talked about--in his written testimony talks about the
fact that there is no real local support for these units, these
designations, and this effort to try to codify the system.
Big time mayor, that's the community you come from, can you
talk about that local support and what it means, and then the
issue of tourism? I mean, they can't stay overnight. I mean,
there are no hotels or eating places in these areas, so they
are going to go somewhere.
Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman, thanks for the question. In
response, if you look at the entire State of Montana, there was
overwhelming support among the residents of Montana for the
creation of the national monument. There is overwhelming
support in the State of Montana for the Lewis and Clark Trail
and for the--all aspects of this National Landscape
Conservation System that are in our backyard.
There are those who felt that they weren't adequately
heard, but I had the opportunity to attend many of the public
hearings that occurred in Montana; in fact, had the opportunity
to introduce Secretary Babbitt when he was in my town, in Great
Falls, Montana. And I personally witnessed Secretary Babbitt
stand for 3 hours on the stage of the university of my town and
personally answer every question that came in. He never shut
the clock off. He let anybody ask any question they wanted. So
there was ample opportunity for input. And the vast majority of
Montanans, certainly the vast majority of people in my town,
are supportive of these concepts.
So I can't say it any other way than that, Mr. Chairman, is
that I believe that from a political point of view these
landscapes have a tremendous amount of support from people in
Great Falls, people in Montana, and people all over the United
States.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you.
And, Mr. Williams, your testimony is noted. The issues that
you raised, we hope as this legislation moves forward that we
will reach some level of satisfaction for yourself and the
concerns that you raised. And I appreciate your testimony.
And I know Mr. Bishop has another question or comment.
Mr. Bishop. I would.
Mr. Gray, I appreciate the comment you just made. Are you
aware or did you have any kind of workings with the Missouri
Breaks National Monument?
Mr. Gray. Yes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So can you just explain, as far as the
unanimous kind of bipartisan support, why, when that was passed
in 2001--the Montana legislature in the Senate by a vote of 38
to 12, and in the House by a vote of 65 to 34--there was a
bipartisan vote, passed resolutions urging opposition to the
Missouri Breaks or the Missouri River National Monument that is
now being administered by the BLM, or the fact that there are
no county commissioners involved in that entire area who are
still supportive of that national monument? That doesn't quite
sound indicative to me of loyal happiness with what is going on
there in Montana. Obviously there are some sectors, but I
wouldn't call it unanimous in any degree, would you?
Mr. Gray. No. I am sorry, Mr. Congressman, I don't believe
I used the word ``unanimous.'' I believe I said
``overwhelming.''
Mr. Bishop. 38 to 12 ain't even overwhelming. You lost by
that amount.
Mr. Gray. Well, sir, the Governor that then supported that
action is no longer the Governor of Montana. And that was, in
my political opinion, one of the reasons that she no longer is
the Governor of Montana. Montanans overwhelmingly supported
these activities.
Mr. Bishop. Is that why there are no county commissioners
in that area that still support it?
Mr. Gray. Well, it is an area that some of the county
commissioners in fact, I think, are changing their opinions on
how things might be out there. This landscape is now viewed as
a very important part of diversifying the economy of north
central Montana.
Mr. Bishop. OK. We will let the data stand for itself. And
I appreciate your tenacity, if not necessarily agreement with
your veracity. But thank you, sir.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
panel, and close with a little discussion about what the intent
of this legislation is. And I am trying to--and thank you very
much for your testimony, all the panels.
The intent about these special places, these units, and
that is that in the future--and I think Mr. Meadows mentioned
that in the future, one of the permanencies that we would like
to establish is that no President or administration with the
stroke of a pen can destroy what has been set aside. And that
is the intention. That is where we would like--that has been
the primary motivation of this legislation, and will continue
to be that.
With that, let me adjourn the meeting, and thank you very
much for being here and for your indulgence all day long. I
appreciate it.
[Whereupon, at 6:08 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]