[Senate Hearing 110-485]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-485
CURRENT PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 570 S. 2124
S. 758 S. 2581
S. 1680 H.R. 1011
S. 2109 H.R. 1311
__________
APRIL 15, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-238 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii.................. 2
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 5
Bisson, Henri, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 27
Bono Mack, Hon. Mary, U.S. Representative From California........ 4
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator From California................ 5
Daly, Elena, Director, National Landscape Conservation System,
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.......... 23
Ensign, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Nevada...................... 2
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 15
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 11
Murray, James, President, Virginia Wilderness Committee,
Charlottesville, VA............................................ 35
Senner, Stanley, Executive Director, Audubon Alaska, Anchorage,
AK............................................................. 37
Trumble, Della, Agdaagux Tribe, King Cove, AK.................... 44
Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Virginia.................... 8
Webb, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator From Virginia....................... 8
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 55
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 61
CURRENT PUBLIC LANDS AND
FORESTS BILLS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. This committee will come to order. There are
several wilderness bills and other public land measures. They
include S. 580 and H.R. 1101 to designate national forest lands
in Virginia as wilderness, S. 758 and H.R. 1311 to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to convey certain lands in Las Vegas
to the Nevada Cancer Institute, S. 1680 to provide for a land
exchange in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, S.
2109 to designate certain Federal lands in Riverside County,
California, as wilderness, S. 2124 to direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey certain lands to Jefferson County,
Montana, for use as a cemetery, and S. 2181 to designate
certain lands in the Monongahela National Forest in the State
of West Virginia.
Although wilderness bills can certainly be contentious, my
understanding is that the Virginia, West Virginia, and
California bills have relatively few outstanding issues, and my
sense is one of the reasons that is the case is our two very
able colleagues, Chairwoman Boxer and Senator Warner, have been
putting in very important and very thoughtful work on their
legislation.
The Administration has raised a number of concerns with
some of the proposed boundaries. It's our intent to work very
closely with them and the Senators to address the nonstandard
wilderness management language contained in some of the bills
and it's our hope that we will be successful with Chairwoman
Boxer and Senator Warner very quickly on their legislation.
The other bill relating to wilderness is Senator
Murkowski's legislation to provide for a land exchange between
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State of Alaska, and the
King Cove Corporation to allow for construction of a road
through an area currently designated as wilderness in the
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, to provide for on-the-ground
access to King communities of King Cove and Cold Bay.
The legislation also provides for additional land to be
added to the wildlife refuge and designated as wilderness in
exchange for the lands transferred out of Federal ownership.
I certainly understand Senator Murkowski's desire to be
responsive to folks in King Cove and I would note that we're
going to work very closely with her to deal with a number of
the issues raised by the bill. Concerns have been raised about
adverse impacts to the wildlife in the area from the new road
and accompanying vehicle use in the area.
The Administration's testimony recommends that the bill be
amended to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
which could be one way to answer some of the questions raised
by the bill and it's going to be helpful this afternoon to hear
the views of other witnesses who will be testifying on this
bill.
My thought was that it did make sense to hold this hearing,
particularly with Senator Boxer and Senator Warner able to
testify, so that the subcommittee could be able to get into the
issues in the case of Senator Murkowski's legislation to better
understand the issues involved with the proposed exchange and
the potential effect on the wildlife refuge and the local
communities.
We're going to have our two Senators testify, but first I'd
like to recognize Senator Barrasso, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, for any comments he'd like to make.
[The prepared statements of Senators Akaka, Ensign, and
Representative Bono Mack follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senator From Hawaii,
on S. 1680
Thank you, Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso for holding
this hearing on the various bills before the Subcommittee.
Today, I am particularly interested in S.1680, legislation
introduced by Senator Murkowski and cosponsored by Senator Stevens that
would benefit one of Alaska's most isolated regions. The legislation
would add 61,000 acres to the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula wildlife
refuges in exchange for allowing the State of Alaska to build a small,
one-lane gravel road through the edge of the Izembek refuge.
As I did a decade ago when this issue came before the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, I believe that the 800 residents of King
Cove, most of which are native Aleut deserve a means of transport that
is accessible under all weather conditions, including gale force winds
and fog. Building a road would provide dependable and safe year-round
access for the residents of King Cove to the nearby Cold Bay airport.
This will go a long way to alleviate the community's many safety,
health, and medical concerns as the Cold Bay airport permits flights to
Anchorage without regard to operational weather limits.
In addition to providing an essential passageway for this
community, the enhanced bill before us has other favorable provisions.
These include authorizing tens of thousands of acres of pristine land
going into wilderness status, as well as efforts to support and
strengthen environmental safeguards. Given the aforementioned, I
continue to support this bill.
Thank you for holding these hearings, Mr. Chairman. I look forward
to working with you on S. 1680 and the other measures being considered
today.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Ensign, U.S. Senator From Nevada, on S.
758 and H.R. 1311
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, Members of the Committee:
Thank you very much for scheduling this hearing and allowing me to
submit my comments concerning this important piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, my bill, which is cosponsored by Senator Harry Reid,
would allow approximately 80 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
land to be conveyed to the Nevada Cancer Institute (NVCI) for
development of the Institute and to the city of Las Vegas for
development of additional medical facilities consistent with the
mission of the NVCI.
Congresswoman Shelley Berkley introduced a companion to this
legislation, H.R. 1311, which was passed by the House on March 4, 2008,
by a vote of 377-0 with 51 not voting. I applaud Congresswoman Berkley
for her efforts in getting this legislation passed, and I am hopeful
that my Senate colleagues will take up the House measure and send it to
the President.
NVCI is committed to research, saving lives, and helping cancer
patients across Nevada. By bringing together experts and community
leaders, the NVCI is helping cancer patients and their families every
day with critical treatment and research techniques. This legislation
will go a long way toward helping NVCI focus resources on research and
patient care. While this legislation is specifically about land
conveyance, Mr. Chairman, I must be clear: this legislation is really
about saving lives.
As our state population grows, it is important that we continue to
attract the best and brightest physicians and researchers in order to
provide excellent medical care. During my time in public office,
supporting efforts to further enhance cancer research, detection, and
treatment has always been one of my top priorities. Historically,
Nevada has struggled to maintain a competitive edge in the cancer
research community, and it is my hope that this bill will enable Nevada
to become a leader in cancer research.
The NVCI cannot unilaterally achieve this goal. In order to become
one of the nation's premier research centers, all of the Nevada
hospital systems and research facilities will need to work together for
the benefit of our community. This bill provides an exciting
opportunity for our state to become a leader in cancer research, and it
is my hope that this Committee can support Senator Reid's and my
efforts by promptly passing this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide you and the Committee some
history of the development of this legislation and identify the public
good that will come out of this conveyance.
The city of Las Vegas approached the Nevada congressional
delegation several years ago to seek assistance in acquiring an 80-acre
parcel of undeveloped land near the corner of Alta Drive and Hualapai
Way. The land is owned by the federal government, but it has been
effectively managed by the city for over 40 years under a Recreation
and Public Purpose Act (R&PP) lease that dates back to the
establishment of Angel Park. The current lease permits the city to use
the Alta-Hualapai site exclusively for recreational purposes. The city
would like to acquire the site from BLM for expansion of the NCVI and
related economic development opportunities.
The city's concept for the Alta-Hualapai site calls for coordinated
development, creation of parks and open space, preservation of flood
control channels, and the creation of economic development
opportunities that are consistent with the mission of the Nevada Cancer
Institute, that will benefit the entire region. The Nevada Cancer
Institute Expansion Act, S. 758, enables the city's development concept
by transferring the Alta-Hualapai site from BLM to the city for the
purpose of developing a nonprofit cancer treatment facility, ancillary
commercial projects, an adjacent park, a flood control project, and a
water pumping facility. The city requested a legislative transfer of
the land because it did not believe that a competitive sale of this
parcel by BLM would yield results compatible with its development
concept. The City Council approved a memorandum of understanding with
the NVCI on December 21, 2005, and this agreement forms the basis of
the development concept authorized by the legislation.
H.R. 1311 / S. 758 authorizes the conveyance of a portion of the
Alta-Hualapai site to NVCI at no cost to facilitate the development of
a cancer treatment facility. In this respect, the legislation is
similar to the R&PP Act, which affords nonprofit entities the ability
to acquire BLM land in the Las Vegas valley at little or no cost for
the purpose of providing facilities or services for the benefit of the
public in connection with public health, safety, or welfare. The
federal government's donation of this land is consistent with federal
support of cancer research and care.
The R&PP Act has been used for decades in Nevada by nonprofit
corporations and governmental entities as a means of acquiring federal
land at little or no cost. Due to the multiple uses envisioned for the
Alta-Hualapai site, however, we agreed with the city that special
legislation was needed to ensure that the city has sufficient authority
to manage development of the site. The city has informed us that NVCI
must still obtain the necessary zoning and use approval from the city
prior to any facility being constructed. However, I am confident that
the partnership between the city and the NVCI can yield a successful
project and will be a benefit to the public good.
Additionally, this legislation allows for the remainder of the 80-
acre Alta-Hualapai site to be conveyed to the city of Las Vegas for
ancillary medical offices or nonprofit use compatible with the mission
of the Nevada Cancer Institute. Any further conveyance of land by the
city of Las Vegas for these purposes would be at full market value with
proceeds deposited in the special account set up under the Southern
Nevada Public Lands Management Act. A conveyance of this nature is
permissible under the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act.
While the BLM might prefer to see this land sold at auction or through
a modified competitive sale, I believe this transfer would provide a
tremendous benefit to the community and would provide a fair return to
the taxpayer. The 80-acre parcel of land that we discuss in this
legislation is surrounded by mostly residential development, which
presents challenges with respect to disposal and further development. I
commend the city of Las Vegas for devising this innovative solution and
hope that Congress will give it every consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this project is important not only to
the over 100,000 newly diagnosed cancer patients in my state but also
to the nation as a whole. With the passage of this legislation, I am
confident that the NVCI can attract top-quality doctors and researchers
with the objective of finding new and exciting breakthroughs to this
debilitating and life-threatening disease. I urge this Committee to
pass this important legislation for the good of Nevadans and for all
Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary Bono Mack, U.S. Representative From
California, on S. 2109
Good afternoon Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of
the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
provide a statement on S. 2109, the California Desert and Mountain
Heritage Act. Last year, I introduced H.R. 3682, which mirrors this
legislation being heard today. I also offered similar legislation in
the 109th Congress, and it is my hope that today's hearing will convey
the hard work undertaken in refining and improving this bill.
I would like to emphasize at the outset that I am pleased to have
worked closely with Senator Boxer on getting to this point, as without
a strong bicameral effort through continual cooperation, we wouldn't
have been able to see such rapid results.
In simple terms known well by this Subcommittee, S. 2109 and H.R.
3682 designate new and expand existing wilderness, along with four Wild
and Scenic Rivers. Additionally, the bills include a small expansion of
the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
One highly visited area of my district is Joshua Tree National
Park, which will bring under its umbrella new lands designated as
wilderness that will enhance the protection of the Joshua tree, which
is immediately recognizable to so many, along with many other plant and
animal species.
Looking beyond the Park, there are other proposed wilderness lands
in the eastern half of my district. These areas are an impressive
example of our continually changing landscape, as the San Andreas Fault
quite literally cuts through the region, creating unique peaks and
views of the nearby Salton Sea.
The western half of my Congressional district brings with it a
different landscape, one that is dominated by the unique rock
formations of Beauty Mountain, and transitioning to groves of oak and
fir trees in the South Fork San Jacinto River Canyon area. These
forests are part of an ecosystem that is also covered in chaparral,
making the region highly prone to devastating fires.
As we saw just last year, when one combines the chaparral that is
dry and dense with the Santa Ana winds, the fires spread with
incredible pace, evidenced in the half-million acres recently lost
throughout Southern California. With Riverside County's recent drought
designation, it is clear to me that we are fortunate to have avoided
another event on the scale of the Esperanza fire in my district last
year, one that took the lives of five brave firefighters.
Because of the difficult circumstances facing the Forest Service
Supervisors in this area, Senator Boxer and I agreed to build into our
respective legislation what we see as a unique but necessary approach
that will hopefully empower the local decision-makers, protect vital
funding for fuels management, and allow for the tools needed to keep
the area safe. The input provided by my local residents was important
to crafting sound, thoughtful language.
This subcommittee understands well just what sort of detailed
efforts can go into talking to residents about these wilderness
proposals. Efforts in this vein will continue and have already resulted
in the support of the nearby County Supervisors, State Legislators, and
municipal governments. These locals have spent years of their own time
putting together the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan, and this federal effort is consistent with this
important proposal.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for providing the
time for a hearing on this legislation so that we can better recognize
the benefits of this legislation as well as any challenges that remain.
I look forward to working closely with this legislation's Senate
sponsor, Senator Boxer, as well as Senator Feinstein as we move the
bill toward enactment.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you holding this hearing, and I want to welcome, add
to your welcome for Senator Warner and Senator Boxer. I know
you have bills that are very important to you, and I want to
work closely with you to make sure we can get them through with
any concerns others might have. So, I'm very much looking
forward to working with both of you.
I want to thank the Administration folks for being here to
testify as well as public officials and with that, Mr.
Chairman, look forward to the hearing.
Senator Wyden. We have two friends here and both of them
have hectic schedules. Can we ask you two to mediate who will
go first? The Senate at its very best and most bipartisan.
Senator Boxer, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Yes, it is so good to be here with you,
Chairman Wyden, with the Ranking Member Barrosso, and thank you
for the tone you sent. Nice to see Senator Murkowski and, of
course, sitting next to one of my heroes in life, John Warner.
It's a pleasure to be here.
I also thank you for allowing me to go first. I've got two
things happening, a hearing on EPW and a bill on the Floor on
technical corrections. So, thank you for your understanding.
What I'm excited about is that you're considering a great
bipartisan bill, the California Desert Mountain Heritage Act.
Working with my colleagues and in particular Representative
Mary Bono Mack and Senator Diane Feinstein, we've put together
a bill that protects some of the last wild places in Riverside
County which is one of the fastest-growing counties in
California, and I would ask unanimous consent that
Congresswoman Bono Mack's testimony be made part of the record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, it will be ordered.
Senator Boxer. I won't be speaking very long but I will be
showing you some photos because I couldn't possibly describe
what you're about to see.
My bill would create four new wilderness areas and expand
six existing wilderness areas, including the Joshua Tree
National Park Wilderness and Jeff will show everybody, I hope
you can see, some of the beauty. It's hard with the light
behind you, but you can see some of it. Do you have any others?
This is more of the beautiful wildflowers growing in the
desert. People say desert and they don't think about it quite
in such a way. Any other photos from Joshua Tree? More
beautiful wildflowers, the mountains and trees growing.
Anything else from there? How many? That's it. OK.
It would designate segments of four rivers as wild and
scenic and we'll show you the North Fork of San Jacinto Creek
and also magnificent pictures here and add four parcels to the
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
The total scope of this proposal is slightly more than
200,000 acres of Federal lands and 31 miles of rivers. The
included areas represent the incredible diversity of Southern
California, ranging from the sandy pristine deserts of the
McCoy Wash, McCoy and Oracopia Region, Oracopia and Cahuilla,
Cahuilla to the pine-covered flanks of Santa Rosa Peak, and
this is the peak.
These are truly magnificent places which deserve to be
passed on to future generations of Americans. I say to all of
you that I now live a lot closer to these mountains and you
really have a spiritual feeling and you just know you're just a
little speck and there's a lot more to the universe when you
get out into these areas.
As stunningly beautiful as these places are, there is so
many other reasons to protect them, to provide critically
important habitat for a multitude of wildlife and plants, many
of which are found nowhere else on earth, Mr. Chairman.
The big-horned sheep, the desert tortoise, the mule deer,
the mountain lion and bald eagle are all found in areas
protected by this bill, and these areas also provide much-
needed clean water for nearby communities. The high desert
mountains receive more precipitation than the surrounding
landscape and flow via rivers and streams to the municipal
water supply.
By protecting these areas, we're also protecting the
region's water supply and I don't have to tell you that in arid
Southern California, this is tremendously important.
Additionally, with nearly one in every $10 earned in
Riverside tied to recreation and tourism, protecting these
areas is really--will give lasting economic benefit to our
region. It will increase property values. It will make outdoor
recreation opportunities visible. It will attract birdwatchers,
hikers, campers, fishermen and other visitors.
And the last point I want to make is the bipartisanship of
this bill. We have such diverse support. I mentioned
Congressman Bono Mack and we both engaged at the local
communities to build support for our proposal and, by the way,
these conversations have led to important boundary and
administrative changes which has added depth to our bipartisan
support.
I'll just name a couple of the supporters. The city of 29
Palms, the city of Coachella, June Batten, California State
Senator, a Republican, John Van Tran, California State
Assemblyman, Republican, Jeff Stone, Riverside County
Supervisor, Roy Wilson, Riverside County Supervisor, the Agua
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Palm Springs Chamber of
Commerce, Yucca Valley Chamber of Commerce, International
Mountain Bike Association, Offroad Business Association. The
list goes on and on.
I ask unanimous consent to put the rest of my statement in
for the record and just say to all of you I think we've really
run the traps on this one. I think this one has such strong
support and we're excited at the prospect of getting a vote on
this.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator From California
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for providing this opportunity to consider a
great bipartisan bill the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act,
and for giving me the opportunity to testify on its behalf.
Working with my colleagues, Representative Mary Bono Mack, who
represents the areas included in this bill, and Senator Dianne
Feinstein, my Senate cosponsor, I have put together a bill that
protects some of the last wild places in Riverside County, one of the
fastest growing counties in California.
And colleagues, the places are truly spectacular. I would like to
take the next few minutes and demonstrate just how truly special and
wild these areas of Riverside County California are.
My bill would create four new wilderness areas and expand six
existing wilderness areas including the Joshua Tree National Park
Wilderness CHARTS--JOSHUA TREE WILDERNESS AREA.
It would designate segments of four rivers as wild and scenic
CHART--NORTH FORK SAN JACINTO CREEK, and add four parcels to the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
The total scope of this proposal is slightly more than 200,000
acres of federal lands and 31 miles of rivers.
The included areas represent the incredible diversity of southern
California, ranging from the sandy, pristine deserts of the McCoy Wash
CHART--MCCOY and Orocopia region CHART--OROCOPIA and Chuckwalla CHART--
CHUCKWALLA, to the pine-covered flanks of Santa Rosa Peak CHART--SANTA
ROSA PEAK.
These are truly magnificent places which deserve to be passed on to
future generations of Americans. As stunningly beautiful as these
places are, there are so many other reasons to protect them.
They provide critically important habitat for a multitude of
wildlife and plants, many of which are found nowhere else on earth.
Peninsular bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, mule deer, mountain lion,
and bald eagles are all found in areas protected by this bill.
These areas also provide much needed clean water for nearby
communities. The high desert mountains receive more precipitation than
the surrounding landscape and flow, via rivers and streams, to
municipal water supplies. By protecting these areas, we are also
protecting a region's water supply--I don't have to tell you that in
arid southern California, this is tremendously important.
Additionally, with nearly one in every ten dollars earned in
Riverside County tied to recreation and tourism, protecting these areas
would also provide lasting economic benefit to the region by increasing
nearby property values, making outdoor recreation opportunities more
visible, and attracting more birdwatchers, hikers, campers, fishermen
and other visitors.
I also want to highlight another important aspect of this bill--its
broad, bipartisan, and diverse support from the local communities. Over
the past several years, Congresswoman Bono Mack and I have engaged the
local communities to build support for our proposal and develop
solutions to their concerns.
These conversations have led to important boundary and
administrative changes that have contributed dramatically to the bill's
backing. I will submit these letters of support for the record but,
just to give you a sense of the depth of bipartisan support, let me
highlight a few.
City of Twenty-nine Palms
City of Coachella
Jim Battin, Jr., California State Senator (Republican)
John Benoit, California State Assemblyman (Republican)
Jeff Stone, Riverside County Supervisor
Roy Wilson, Riverside County Supervisor
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce
Yucca Valley Chamber of Commerce
International Mountain Bike Association
Off-Road Business Association
The list goes on and on and includes scientists, equestrians, small
business owners, outdoor educators, conservation organizations,
realtors, and outfitters.
I hope that these pictures have demonstrated just how special these
places are and why Representative Bono Mack and I have worked so hard
over the years to conserve them.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify on this bill, and I
look forward to working with you and Chairman Bingaman and Ranking
Member Domenici to move this bill forward.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, we will put your entire
statement into the record, and it is very evident, Senator
Boxer, that you have toiled long and well to bring together all
of those various groups and knowing particularly the mountain
bikers' interest in this kind of issue, we see that in Oregon,
and I'm especially glad you've included them.
I don't have any questions for you. The staff will follow
up with your staff on a handful of issues that go to some of
the boundary questions, but you've done very good work.
I think my intention now is to see if Senator Barrasso or
Senator Murkowski have any questions. I don't think they do.
We'll excuse you. I think, if it's acceptable, Senator
Murkowski, let's hear from Senator Warner, who has also done
very good work to try to bring together all the interests in
Virginia.
We'll hear from Senator Warner and then I'll recognize
Senator Murkowski for an opening statement.
Senator Boxer, well done.
Senator Warner. Let's have Senator Murkowski proceed with
her opening statement and then I'll be happy to speak.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to defer to
Senator Warner, unless he would like to be educated about the
Izembek National Refuge, and I would be happy to do that, but
in the interest of time and out of respect to my senior
colleague, I will defer to him.
Senator Wyden. It is a deferral contest and you will go
first, Senator Warner.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Warner. I think all of this expression of
friendship and collegiality here is a consequence of the
distinguished occupant of the chair who is noted here in the
Senate.
[Laughter.]
Senator Warner. I don't know of anyone that expresses
greater unilateral----
Senator Wyden. Comes from the W in the alphabet.
Senator Warner. That's true, and our good friend Senator
Boxer.
Thank you, members of the committee. First, I'm just going
to put a statement in. I would want to make just a little
comment or two of my own.
This is called the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007
and Senator Webb and I are jointly putting it in. I ask
unanimous consent that my statement be followed by his in the
record today.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statements of Senators Webb and Warner
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Webb, U.S. Senator From Virginia
Good afternoon Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici and
members of the Committee. I would like to thank you for holding a
hearing on this important matter. I am proud to join with my colleague,
Senator Warner, in supporting the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act (S.
570). The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act would designate nearly 43,000
acres of the Jefferson National Forest as wilderness or wilderness
study areas. In addition, the legislation would designate more than
10,000 acres of the Jefferson National Forest as National Scenic Areas.
If enacted, this bill would create new Wilderness Areas, new National
Scenic Areas and would expand six existing Wilderness Areas in portions
of Bland, Craig, Grayson, Giles, Lee, Montgomery and Smyth Counties,
Virginia within the Jefferson National Forest.
Virginia is fortunate to have such an abundant supply of pristine
lands. The ridges and valleys of western Virginia are an integral part
of the lives of its inhabitants and our state's shared heritage and the
protection of these lands will preserve them for future generations to
enjoy. Our children and grandchildren will be able to experience the
same untouched landscapes their ancestors experienced for generations
before.
The bill will also help promote ecotourism in Southwest Virginia.
Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in Southwest Virginia
and the designation of these wilderness and scenic areas within the
region will support increased tourism and outdoor recreational
opportunities. The areas under consideration will provide opportunities
for solitude and wilderness recreation including hiking, hunting,
fishing, camping, rock climbing, canoeing, backpacking, horseback
riding and many other outdoor activities which are enjoyed by local
residents and visitors alike.
I would note that a similar bi-partisan measure, H.R. 1011, was
approved by the House of Representatives in October of last year under
the leadership of Congressman Rick Boucher. Congressman Boucher worked
diligently with his colleagues in the Virginia delegation, the House
and the Forest Service to pass this important piece of legislation. It
enjoys the support of Congressmen Frank Wolf, Tom Davis, Jim Moran and
Bobby Scott, as well as the late Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. The
legislation also been endorsed by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and a
broad range of local communities, local businesses, tourism
organizations, and conservation groups.
I thank the Committee for holding a hearing on the Virginia Ridge
and Valley Act and I look forward to working with you to secure its
expeditious passage.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Warner, U.S. Senator From Virginia
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barasso, I thank you for holding
this hearing today regarding the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007
(S.570/H.R.1011). I have worked closely on this bi-partisan bill with
my colleagues, Senator Jim Webb (D-VA), and Congressman Rick Boucher
(D-VA-9), who has championed this legislation in the House of
Representatives. I thank both of them for their tremendous efforts.
I also want to thank Dr. Jim Murray for his willingness to come to
Washington and testify on behalf of this bill. His long time efforts to
promote wilderness in Virginia are much appreciated, and I am proud to
know that a man with ties to Washington and Lee University and the
University of Virginia, two institutions for which I have a particular
pride, is advocating for such a worthy cause.
As you know, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act seeks to add six new
wilderness areas, expand six existing wilderness areas, and create two
new national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest in Southwest
Virginia. I am pleased that this legislation enjoys the support of many
local governments, organizations, businesses, tourism groups, and
elected officials. Virginia's Governor, Tim Kaine, has endorsed this
legislation as well.
While I am aware that the U.S. Forest Service supports some but not
all of these designations, I, as an alumni of the Forest Service from
1943, am confident that the Forest Service will continue to work with
us on this legislation so that it may move quickly in the Senate.
Certainly a bill that enjoys so much local support, and I will submit a
list of endorsers for the record, should move swiftly.
I am proud to say that Virginia boasts just over 100,000 acres of
designated wilderness lands today. It has been my privilege to work on
behalf of many of these areas over my nearly 30 years in the Senate.
However, there is still much work to be done. If enacted, the Virginia
Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 will substantially increase this figure by
expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest
with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness and
wilderness study lands and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic
areas.
As an avid outdoorsman, I enjoy opportunities for recreation like
most Americans. Therefore, I want to stress the many joyful outdoor
activities that will be enhanced by the wilderness designation in these
areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and
horseback riding, to name a few. By designating these lands as
wilderness and scenic areas, we ensure that Virginians will be able to
enjoy these activities in an unspoiled playground for generations to
come.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Virginia
Ridge and Valley Act of 2007. It is my hope to see this important
legislation become law before my last term in the U.S. Senate is over.
Senator Warner. Then we have Congressman Rick Boucher who's
in this district in Virginia, and I'm finishing up 30 years
here and I think Rick has got well over 20 years in the Senate
and one thing about it, this man, he is noted for his hard work
and his thoroughness with which he does things.
I'm pleased to say that our staffs and others have
carefully gone to all of the--just call it the political
entities involved, the Boards of Supervisors, the town councils
in all the areas down there, and so far as I know, there's not
a word of dissent within that very important structure of
elected individual public servants who try to administer their
respective areas in the best interests of their citizens and
the State.
Now, the national forests, it's the Jefferson National
Forest, is one of the oldest, and I looked up in preparation
for this statement, there's a 100,000 acres total in all
through Virginia and there was only one of the wilderness areas
put in before I came to the Senate. So, I've had the privilege
and I underline the privilege to work on almost, I guess, all
of the 100,000, save that one small piece, in my years up here,
many years of serving on this committee, as a matter of fact.
I just think it's one of the noblest things that members of
congress can do for the future generations, is to set aside
these areas while they can still be done. Now this one is
fairly large. It's around 43,000 acres and I want to introduce
Mr. Murray right here. Would you stand a minute? This
gentleman, I believe you're going to testify, aren't you?
Here's a man who's the father of the whole system for all
these years and he's served many years in the Forest Service.
Now I'm going to go into some greater detail right away about
the concerns of the Forest Service. I respect them.
As I understand, there are just certain areas that they
have some reservation about, but I want to bring to the
attention and put in the record in 1943, I wouldn't doubt
that's before everybody in the Forest Service in this room was
born, I went out West to work in Idaho as a fire-fighter with
the U.S. Forest Service and thanks to Senator Craig, he
arranged for me to go back up way into the mountains to find
the remnants of the old camp that we had in the Summer of 1943
and we operated with broken down Army trucks and mules but we
did a good job and we only had crosscut saws and double-ended
axes and we managed pretty well.
So, I would hope the Forest Service wouldn't too vigorously
oppose the actions of one of their alumni but let's hear what
they have to say.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that I have pretty well covered any
of the major areas of this wonderful statement which I think
the bulk will be put into the record with a few technical
changes, and I thank the distinguished members of this
committee, and if there are no questions for this humble
Senator, I'll absent myself.
Senator Wyden. Senator Warner, I want to only say that your
interest in natural resources is longstanding. I've been very
much aware of it and I don't want to make this a bouquet-
tossing contest, but you have done so much good work in this
area and others. We're going to do everything we can to
expedite your legislation.
There are some, as I understand it from the Administration,
some questions about this aspect of the boundaries or that
aspect of the boundaries, but we're going to work very quickly
to get this resolved and I think this is another example of
your extraordinary service to the people of Virginia and the
people of our country.
Senator Warner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just
take one other minute, people ask me why I've taken an interest
in this global climate change issue. It was on that trip, I
told my friend Senator Craig that I went back and visited the
mountains and the hills and the streams that I knew in 1943 and
the damage today to that forest, not by man but by climatic
changes which enabled the bee population to treble and eat up
the trees, I could see visibly in those streams and areas which
is still undeveloped, it's so far up in the wilderness, not
wilderness but the areas of the State, I just barely was able
to recognize and it's all been done--in other words, no man has
gone up in that area to any extent, other than an occasional
fisherman or trapper.
Boy, the forests have suffered and suffered heavily. So, I
think the extent to which we can try and preserve pieces here
and there for future generations, it's high on my agenda. You
concur in my observation, would you not, Senator Craig, in the
deterioration of some of those forests that I visited?
Senator Craig. There is no question, and I think you speak
well of it. The situation, Senator Warner, we've known since
the early 1990s, especially the forests of the Great Basin West
that's experiencing greater extremes of weather and drought are
in real difficulty.
But I would say in the context of your legislation, while
you refer to it as a sizable area, in Idaho and Wyoming, that's
a pretty good size ranch. In Alaska, Lisa Murkowski would
probably call it a backyard that you'd have to buy two mores,
and in Oregon, pretty good farm.
Senator Warner. Gentlemen, then I'm not being too greedy.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Thank you. Well said, Senator Warner.
Senator Wyden. Senator Warner, thank you very much. Let's
now take the opportunity to have Senator Murkowski and Senator
Craig make any opening statements that they would care to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I'd like to provide a quick summary
because I think it is important to lay the groundwork of what
we're talking about here with S. 1680. This is a bill that I
have introduced at the request of the people of King Cove,
Alaska.
This is a community of about 800 full-time residents.
During fishing season, it might get up to about an additional
400 or so, but basically the people of King Cove are involved
in fishing or fish processing. It is a community that's
populated by an Aleut population. They've been in the area for
4,000 years or so. This is home.
The community is about 80 percent Native and King Cove
itself was designated as an Alaska Native Village under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Of course, this
was the legislation that settled the Aboriginal Land Claims of
Alaska's Native People.
The King Cove Native Corporation was given the right to
select 109,000 acres of land near King Cove. So what we have
with S. 1680 is a land exchange among the State of Alaska, the
King Cove Native Corporation, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
that will enable the construction of a road between King Cove
and the nearest all-weather airport which is at Cold Bay. This
is about 30 miles away from King Cove.
The Cold Bay Airport was essentially given to us as a gift
from the military. It is the third longest runway within--of
any civilian airport within the State of Alaska. It can handle
all size of jet aircraft. It has IFR capabilities, and the
reason we need to have a road between King Cove and the Cold
Bay area is King Cove is essentially landlocked. It's
landlocked by the Izembek Refuge and during many parts of the
year, you just simply can't get from King Cove to Cold Bay.
The numbers are very important and Senator Craig was
alluding that in Alaska, that sometimes our numbers just
overwhelm other statistics, and I think this exchange is one
where the numbers are very significant.
The Izembek Refuge encompasses about 417,533 acres. This is
actually the smallest refuge in the State of Alaska. The land
that's required for the road is about 206 acres. So we're
talking about less than 1 percent of the total refuge.
In return for this narrow road corridor that we're talking
about of 206 acres, an additional 1,600 acres on Kodiak Island,
the State of Alaska and King Cove Corporation are willing to
transfer 61,723 acres of land to the Federal Government. So
those are numbers that deserve to be repeated. We're talking
about 206 acres required for this road and we're willing to
transfer 61,723 acres of land to the Federal Government.
Now of this total, the King Cove----
Senator Craig. It sounds like a pretty good deal.
Senator Murkowski. It sounds like a pretty good deal. The
King Cove Native Corporation is prepared to part with 13,800
acres. This is about 17 percent of their aboriginal land, and
again I don't mean to harp on the numbers but you've got 206
acres in the refuge, the area that we're talking about building
this road, only 97 acres of those 206 are in the existing
wilderness area.
The road itself would traverse seven miles of the existing
wilderness and in contrast, you've got 45,493 acres of new
wilderness lands that's going to be transferred to the Federal
Government under the legislation. So, I think most people would
say, well, it sounds like a pretty good deal but why? Why would
you do this? Why would the State of Alaska and the King Cove
Native Corporation be willing to give up more than 61,000 acres
and only get a fraction of this acreage in return and it's a
very, very simple answer. It's the health and the safety of
King Cove's people.
King Cove doesn't have a hospital. They have an Indian
Health Service clinic that does have telemedicine connections
with the Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage.
Right now, at this point in time, the clinic is staffed by
a nurse practitioner and our community health aide. We did have
a doctor out there as recently as 2006 but he left after just 6
months. He said that King Cove was just too small.
So, we've got real advantages in telemedicine and we
appreciate that, but we also know that it has severe
limitations. When a patient or an individual is in dire need of
medical attention, they need to be medevaced to Anchorage and
those flights typically depart from the Cold Bay Airport.
Now King Cove does have an airstrip, but it's surrounded by
4,000-foot mountain peaks. You've got a video on your desk here
and you can kind of see as you look at the community of King
Cove, you've got mountains going straight up on either side.
I've had an opportunity to fly in and I do a lot of flying in
Alaska, and there's not a lot of time where it raises my
eyebrows but you paid attention when you are landing in King
Cove.
So often what we have is an airstrip that is shut down by
fog in the summer. During the winter, you've got the snowfall,
the strong winds, the heavy turbulence. It is a dicey flight
in. In addition, you can only go in during the daylight. You're
limited to VFR. It's inaccessible for perhaps 30 percent of the
daylight hours. We have had deaths coming in and out of King
Cove.
In 1980, we had four people died when the medevac flight
went down in snow squalls as darkness was approaching, and this
was really a defining moment for this community when they said
we've got to do something and this is why this community is so
passionate about getting a road.
The other way to get out of King Cove is by sea. You can go
across to Cold Bay, to the all-weather airport, takes about two
and a half hours in a fishing vessel, but that's assuming that
you've got some decent weather out there. You get some pretty
high seas, waves in excess of 20 feet. It's not something you
want to go through if you have somebody that is in a life
situation.
Congress has recognized that we need to deal with the
access issue. In 1998, there were 59 Senators who voted in
favor of a land exchange that would provide for a wilderness
road corridor in return for 664 acres of land to be transferred
by the King Cove Corporation, 580 acres of those lands were to
be added for the wilderness area. So, I think you can see that
the deal we've got on the table now is substantially better for
certainly the Federal Government.
Now, we have some objections that we will hear today by
those who suggest that we need to forego a road through the
wilderness, we need to work with the conservation community in
a planning process to identify alternatives to the road, and
I've never been entirely clear to me why we needed to pursue
these alternatives.
The proposed road would be built along the Kensarof Lagoon
which is at the south end of an isthmus and the biological
heart of this refuge is generally acknowledged to be at the
Izembek Lagoon at the north end of the isthmus.
We've got more than 40 miles of all-weather and dry weather
roads leading to the Izembek Lagoon along with numerous parking
areas, many run across the isthmus, and, you know, you can see
them when you're flying over them. They're on the map. We've
got perhaps 14 or 15 miles of roads that already extend into
the wilderness area.
In any event, the outgrowth of that planning process, along
with a full-blown EIS, is that the people of the United States
agreed to provide the people of King Cove with hovercraft to be
the marine link between King Cove and Cold Bay, but what we've
seen, the hovercraft has reliability problems of its own. The
Aleutian East Borough, which is the county government, realizes
they can't maintain the hovercraft service.
So for this reason, the people of King Cove have joined
with the State of Alaska, the National Congress of American
Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, to petition Congress
for a land route out of the community, and I guess I would add,
Mr. Chairman, that, well, the question of whether the Native
people of King Cove should have to part with any of their
aboriginal lands in return for a reliable way out of their
village presents some serious ethical questions to me.
The fact is the State of Alaska and the Native people of
King Cove are prepared to pay dearly for a road to the airport.
I don't think any community, much less an aboriginal community,
deserves to be landlocked by the Federal Government. So that's
why I've introduced this legislation again at the request of
the community.
I know that they will have some compelling stories to tell.
I appreciate that you've given me some latitude with my opening
statement, but as you can probably note, it's an issue that
gives folks great passion. So, I appreciate your time, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Senator Craig, any opening
statement?
Senator Craig. I do not have any opening statement. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
While Senator Murkowski was talking about her concern and
this refuge out on the Aleutian Chain, I was reading here and
thought I might share this with the committee.
She talks of the weather. The average daily wind speed is
nearly 20 miles per hour year-round with wind guests greater
than 50 miles an hour, which is not uncommon. Temperatures are
reasonable during the summer, a bit cold during the winter.
But here's the thing I found most fascinating. There's a
whole column on how to deal with bears. Visitors often observe
brown bears while hiking, fishing and hunting. Keep these
unique encounters safe by following a few common sense
guidelines.
Now here are a couple that I don't quite understand. It
said play dead if attacked. Some of you might appreciate that.
In the extremely unlikely event of a bear attack, play dead.
You probably already are, so that wouldn't be too difficult to
do.
It says don't run. You can't outrun a bear. Watch me. I
would certainly try. Some have been clocked at speeds up to 35
miles an hour. If they can go 35, I can go 36, at least for a
short stretch. Then it says about fishing, if a bear approaches
you while you're fishing, stop fishing. Good idea. Cut the
line, don't let the fish splash. Then it talks about how you
would prepare your food, keeping the wind to your back and all
of those other kinds of things.
I just found that really quite fascinating. It's an
environment that, unless you've been there, you probably don't
have any appreciation for. I am amazed that for a right-of-way
for a road, that a Native corporation would be willing to give
up 60,000 acres. That is a phenomenal give-away for the right
to have access to humankind without effectively disturbing the
non-humankind. It sounds like the bears are pretty dominant up
there.
Thank you.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much. Let's go right to our
panel. Joel Holtrop with the National Forest Service, Henri
Bisson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, and Elena
Daly, director of National Landscape Conservation System for
the Department of the Interior.
We're going to make your prepared remarks part of the
hearing record. I know that there's almost a compulsion to just
put your head down and start reading. We will make your remarks
a part of the record and if you could just take 5 minutes or so
to just sort of summarize your principal concerns. I do pledge
to you that your full remarks will be part of the record.
We'll begin with you, Mr. Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to provide the department's view
on the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act, the Wild Monongahela Act,
the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act, and the
Montana Cemetery Act.
I have had the opportunity to provide testimony on each of
these bills in the House of Representatives. The House versions
do reflect changes as a result of working with the subcommittee
but concerns remain.
I look forward to working with the Senate on these bills
and I will discuss each bill separately.
The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act. The department supports
several of the designations included in the bill but we object
to other designations and to mandatory planning and
construction requirements.
The department would like to work with the committee to
offer suggestions which we think will improve S. 570. The
department had the opportunity to provide testimony on this
bill to the House Natural Resources Committee on two separate
occasions in 2007.
H.R. 1011 as passed by the House included several
recommendations made by the department but we still have
concerns we would like to work with the subcommittee to
address.
The Wild Monongahela Act. The department supports
designation of Cheat Mountain, Cranberry Expansion, Dry Fork
Expansion and Roaring Plains West as wilderness.
For all four areas, wilderness designation would be
consistent with recommendations by the Monongahela National
Forest in its 2006 Forest Plan Revision. We do not object to
wilderness designation for the other three areas proposed by
the bill.
We would like to recommend boundary adjustments to account
for mapping errors, to provide access to State and private land
to exclude developed sites and managed wildlife openings, to
add offsets for power lines and other features inconsistent
with wilderness, and to align the boundaries with existing
wilderness boundaries.
The House Committee on Natural Resources approved an
amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 5151. These
adjustments address concerns raised by the department in our
previous testimony and we support them.
The California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act. The
proposed wilderness designations in the bill do not match the
wilderness recommendations identified in the revisions to the
Forest Plans for the Southern California forests.
Of the 30,630 acres S. 2109 proposes for wilderness, only
approximately 800 acres overlap with the Forest Plan's
recommendation for wilderness. We would like to work with the
subcommittee to remedy the inconsistency this bill has with the
California Forest Plan Revisions.
The Forest Service has always been a champion of
wilderness. We believe that wilderness designation is special
and as a general principle that natural processes should be
allowed to work in wilderness without intervention. However,
natural process may pose potential conflicts with other
priorities or land objectives, such as protection from wild
land fire.
During the revision process, most of these proposed
wilderness designations were determined not to meet criteria
for wilderness suitability. The areas were found unsuitable
because of current or potential uses that would conflict with
wilderness designation, such as reduction of hazardous fuels,
elements of fire management, current recreational uses, grazing
improvement maintenance and habitat management for threatened
and endangered species.
Therefore, the department does not support these proposed
wilderness additions.
The department does not oppose the additions to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, but we would like to
work with the committee to clarify river management and address
differences between mileage and classifications in this bill
and those in the Forest Plan.
The department fully supports that portion of the expansion
of the Santa Rosa and Santa Jacinto Mountains National Monument
under national forest management.
Montana Cemetery Act. The department is supportive of
Senate 2124 but requests that the conveyance of the public land
estate include consideration for the market value of the
property and for the administrative costs associated with the
conveyance.
The department does not support the reversion of the lands
back to the Secretary.
The bill provides for the continued protection of the
historic and cultural values associated with the site but does
not exempt the Forest Service from its obligations to comply
with the National Historic Preservation Act or any other law at
the time of transfer.
This concludes my statement, and I'll be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture
Thank you for the opportunity today to provide the Department's
view on S. 570 and H.R. 1011, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of
2007; S. 2581, Wild Monongahela Act: A National Legacy for West
Virginia's Special Places; S. 2109, California Desert and Mountain
Heritage Act; and S. 2124, Montana Cemetery Act of 2007. I am Joel
Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest System of the Forest Service. I
will address each of these bills separately.
s. 570 and h.r. 1011
S. 570 would designate 27,817 acres in the Jefferson National
Forest as new components of the National Wilderness Preservation System
(NWPS). Specifically, the bill would designate the following areas:
Brush Mountain East Wilderness, Brush Mountain Wilderness, Raccoon
Branch Wilderness, Stone Mountain Wilderness, Hunting Camp Creek
Wilderness, and Garden Mountain Wilderness. S. 570 would also designate
11,344 acres as additions to existing wilderness areas namely, Mountain
Lake Wilderness, Lewis Fork Wilderness, Little Wilson Creek Wilderness,
Shawvers Run Wilderness, Peters Mountain Wilderness, and Kimberling
Creek Wilderness.
S. 570 would designate 3,226 acres in the Jefferson National Forest
as the ``Lynn Camp Creek Wilderness Study Area.'' The bill also would
designate 349 acres depicted on the map as the ``Kimberling Creek
Additions and Potential Wilderness Area'' as a potential wilderness
area for eventual incorporation in the Kimberling Creek Wilderness. The
bill would set forth requirements regarding ecological restoration
within this area and would provide for the designation of the area as a
wilderness within five years.
In addition, the bill would designate 11,583 acres of the Seng
Mountain and Bear Creek areas as national scenic areas for purposes of
ensuring the protection and preservation of scenic quality, water
quality, natural characteristics, and water resources; protecting
wildlife and fish habitat; protecting areas that may develop
characteristics of old-growth forests; and providing a variety of
recreation opportunities.
Finally the bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
develop a management plan for the designated national scenic areas. The
Secretary also would be required to develop a trail plan for hiking and
equestrian trails on lands designated as wilderness by this Act and to
develop a plan for non-motorized recreation trails within the Seng
Mountain and Bear Creek National Scenic Areas. The bill also would
direct the Secretary to develop a sustainable non-motorized trail in
Smyth County, Virginia.
We recognize and commend the delegation and the Committee for its
collaborative approach and local involvement that has contributed to
the development of this bill. The Department supports several of the
designations included in the bill but we object to other designations
and to mandatory planning and construction requirements. The Department
would like to work with the Committee to offer suggestions which we
think will improve S. 570.
wilderness proposals
During the development or revision of a forest land and resource
management plan (LRMP), a national forest conducts an evaluation of
potential wilderness or wilderness study areas that satisfies the
definition of wilderness found in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of
1964. On National Forest System (NFS) lands in the Eastern United
States (east of the 100th meridian) the criteria for evaluating
potential wilderness recognizes that much, if not all of the land,
shows signs of human activity and modification. The Record of Decision
for the revised Jefferson National Forest LRMP, signed on January 15,
2004, was developed over an 11-year period with extensive public
involvement. It contains recommendations for 25,200 acres of wilderness
study areas, including new wilderness study areas and additions to
existing areas designated as wilderness.
The Department supports the provisions in S. 570 that would
designate new components of the NWPS that are consistent with the
Jefferson National Forest LRMP recommendations for wilderness study.
These areas are the proposed Garden Mountain, Hunting Creek Camp, and
Stone Mountain Wilderness areas.
The Department supports the designation of additions to existing
wilderness areas for the following areas: Kimberling Creek A and B
Additions, Lewis Fork Addition, Little Wilson Creek Addition, Mountain
Lake A and C Additions, Peters Mountain Addition, and Shawvers Run A
Addition.
The Department does not oppose the designation of the ``Lynn Camp
Creek Wilderness Study Area,'' the Mountain Lake B Addition, and
Shawvers Run Additions B and C areas. However, we have concerns about
the suitability of the Lynn Camp Creek Wilderness Study Area as a
component of the NWPS due to its small size, configuration, and
manageability (due to outstanding mineral rights). The Department is
willing to work with the committee to look at other options for
protection of this area. We also have concerns about the suitability of
the Mountain Lake B Addition and the Shawvers Run Additions B and C as
components of the NWPS due to their size and configuration. An
additional concern with the Mountain Lake Addition B is that it
contains a 59-acre private inholding which could require associated
road access in the future if the parcel is developed.
The Department does not support the designation as ``potential
wilderness'' for the 349-acre portion of the Kimberling Creek area. The
designation ``Potential Wilderness'' is not a designation referenced in
the Wilderness Act of 1964. A subsequent designation of wilderness
following a fixed time period and associated compulsory changes in
conditions can serve to limit the Secretary's discretion in the
allocation of scarce resources and other management actions associated
with the administration of the NFS and the NWPS. We use the term,
potential wilderness, in our wilderness evaluation process under our
LRMP efforts to evaluate areas as potential additions to the NWPS. The
Kimberling Creek addition was recently acquired as NFS land and in its
current condition does not contain the basic natural characteristics
that make it suitable for wilderness due to an extensive road network.
We would recommend that the Committee consider allowing the Secretary
to continue the current management prescription for this area which is
Dispersed Recreation-Unsuitable. This management emphasis provides for
a variety of dispersed recreation uses with minimal vegetation
management and would allow use of motorized and mechanized equipment
for needed road and trail rehabilitation work. We plan to develop
rehabilitation plans and implement these plans within the next 5 to 10
years. While this area was not recommended as a potential wilderness
area in the LRMP, future wilderness designation of this area could be
reevaluated after restoration activities occur.
The Department does not support wilderness designation for the
Brush Mountain and Brush Mountain East areas. These areas lie on the
north side of Brush Mountain and are separated by a 345 kilovolt
powerline corridor. They were not recommended for wilderness study in
LRMP. They contain fire-dependent forest habitat which make up
approximately 50 percent of these two areas. Additionally, the areas
are largely surrounded by private lands. Wildland urban interface
(subdivisions and housing developments) exists on the north and south
boundaries. If designated as wilderness, our ability to utilize
prescribed fire for the maintenance of southern yellow pine forest
communities and to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects would be
hampered in these interface areas. Our ability to use prescribed fire
is compromised when we cannot mechanically construct firelines to
better control fire management activities. Additionally, the narrow
width of these areas and the bisecting powerline corridor within these
areas detract from their naturalness and offer few opportunities for
solitude. We have also recently identified a need for a small boundary
change in the proposed wilderness area along the northwest side of
Brush Mountain East. An electric distribution line is located along
Craig Creek and the current boundary includes some of the line within
the proposed wilderness. If the Committee proceeds with wilderness
designation, we would like to work with the Committee to adjust the
boundary to exclude this existing line.
The Department could support the designation of the Raccoon Branch
area as a wilderness area if agreements are reached in resolving trail
maintenance issues in the area and if the requirement contained in
section 5(d) of the bill for a sustainable trail is amended to provide
more flexibility for any future alternative trail locations. Nearly six
miles of the Virginia Highlands Horse Trail (VHHT) and the Dickey Knob
Trail traverse this area. These trails are heavily used by both
equestrians and mountain bikers. Currently only four of the six miles
of the VHHT in the Raccoon Branch area are open to mountain bike use
due to the steep nature of the trail where it enters the west end of
Raccoon Branch. Wilderness designation would eliminate mountain bike
use within the area. While equestrian use is compatible with wilderness
designation, heavy use and ground conditions along the VHHT necessitate
extensive maintenance to sustain the integrity of the trail and protect
watershed and other resources values. To maintain the trail to the
standards that are needed without mechanized or motorized equipment
will require cooperative agreements and commitments from user groups to
help in maintenance to protect the resources and to provide for
continued equestrian use of the trail. We would like to work with the
Committee to adjust the boundary as now proposed in the bill. The
adjustment would exclude the section of VHHT from the western boundary
to its intersection with Hickory Ridge Trail #4516 which we believe
would alleviate much of the concern with maintaining the trail for
equestrian use.
national scenic area proposals
Section 4 of S. 570 would establish Seng Mountain and Bear Creek
National Scenic Areas (NSAs). In August 2007, the President signed
Executive Order (E.O.) No. 13443, ``Facilitation of Hunting Heritage
and Wildlife Conservation.'' This E.O. requires Federal land management
agencies to ``...Manage wildlife and wildlife habitats on public lands
in a manner that expands and enhances hunting opportunities...'' Forest
Service direction on compliance with the E.O. is being developed.
Portions of both the Seng Mountain and Bear Creek NSAs are managed
under the LRMP to manage black bear habitat. We would like to work with
the Committee on language that would allow a low level of habitat
management for black bear that would be consistent with the E.O. and
compatible with the purposes for which the scenic areas are being
established.
The proposed Seng Mountain NSA is within the congressionally
designated Mount Rogers National Recreation Area (NRA). The Mount
Rogers NRA is managed to provide public outdoor recreation benefits and
the continued use by a diversity of recreation uses. The Seng Mountain
area contains a motorized trail, the Barton Gap Trail #4624. Motorized
use of the trail would be prohibited under S. 570. The Barton Gap Trail
is one of only five designated motorcycle trails on the George
Washington and Jefferson National Forests and is an important part of
the diversity of recreation opportunities that we provide the visitors
that use the Forest and the Mount Rogers NRA. The Department would like
to work with the Committee to resolve any confusion resulting from the
overlapping designations for the Seng Mountain area. The Department
recommends that the overlapping designation be clarified and continued
motorized use on the Barton Gap Trail be allowed.
trail development plans
S.570 would require the Secretary to establish a trail plan to
develop hiking and equestrian trails on lands designated as wilderness
by this bill. The designated lands would be administered in accordance
with the Wilderness Act. The Forest Service already addresses trail
management and planning standards within the LRMP planning process. The
Department considers the requirement to develop additional trail plans
to be unnecessary.
S.570 also would require the Secretary to develop a sustainable
trail to provide a continuous connection for non-motorized travel
between State Route (SR) 650 and Forest Development Road 4018. This
trail would be along SR 16. We believe that it would be costly and
difficult to provide a trail in this general location that would be
safe for both equestrians and mountain bikers. The existing gravel road
(SR 650) is winding and narrow and contains several blind curves. It
receives high local use and is the main access road for campers and
recreational vehicles to enter Hurricane Campground. Further, a
potential connector trail for horses and bikes from SR 650 along the
route of the old Marion-Rye Valley rail bed would require crossing SR
16, a 55-mph State highway that receives heavy commercial use, in a
location with poor sight distance. Trail construction along the stream
would be unlikely to meet our Forest standards for riparian protection.
The bill language that specifies the terminus of the connector route
limits our ability to locate and construct a trail that will meet
Forest Service standards for safety and in a manner that is
environmentally appropriate. We would like to work with the Committee
on language that would allow us to construct trail facilities with
adequate consideration for alternatives, priorities, and costs.
house amendment to h.r. 1011
The Department had the opportunity to provide testimony on this
bill to the House Natural Resources Committee on two separate
occasions, May and September of 2007. H.R. 1011, as passed by the
House, contains the following amendments to the bill as introduced.
Section 2 was amended to adjust the acreage of the Brush Mountain
East Wilderness from 3,769 acres to 3,743 acres to provide for a
setback of 100 feet along the 345 kilovolt powerline corridor. The
Department supports this acreage adjustment, but we remain concerned
designating this area as wilderness for the reasons stated earlier in
this testimony.
Section 4 was amended to adjust the acreage of the Seng Mountain
National Scenic Area from 6,455 to 5,192 acres to provide for continued
motorized use of the Barton Gap Trail and Black Bear habitat
management. The Department supports this acreage adjustment but would
like to work with the Committee to refine the boundaries of the
designation further.
Section 4 was amended to authorize motorized travel on Forest
Development Road 6261 in the Bear Creek NSA during bear and deer
hunting seasons. In testimony before the House Committee on Natural
Resources in May 2007, the Department expressed concerns regarding the
proposed Bear Creek NSA. Specifically, we were concerned about the
limitation on our ability to improve black bear habitat and to provide
opportunities for hunting as a result of this designation and mandated
closure of the road. The Department indicated it could support the Bear
Creek NSA designation if allowances were made for seasonal motorized
use of the road during hunting season. The Department supports this
amendment since it provides these allowances.
Section 5 was amended to allow motorized access for emergency
purposes involving the heath and safety of persons, including search
and rescue efforts and responses to an Amber Alert. The Department
considers this addition to be unnecessary as these actions are
currently allowed in wilderness under section 4 (c) of the Wilderness
Act of 1964 and Forest Service policy, and recommends its deletion from
the bill. Section 5 also was amended to provide more flexibility for
the location of a non-motorized trail located along the southern
boundary of the Raccoon Branch Wilderness. The Department supports this
part of the amendment.
s. 2581
S. 2581 would designate about 47,128 acres of the Monongahela
National Forest as wilderness, adding to three existing wilderness
areas and designating four new ones. The Department supports
designation of Cheat Mountain, Cranberry Expansion, Dry Fork Expansion,
and Roaring Plains West as wilderness. For all four areas, wilderness
designation would be consistent with recommendations by the Monongahela
National Forest in its 2006 forest plan revision.
We do not object to wilderness designation for the other three
areas proposed by the bill. In the environmental impact statement that
accompanied the 2006 forest plan revision, the Monongahela National
Forest determined that Big Draft, the Dolly Sods Expansion, and Spice
Run are all available for wilderness designation. The Monongahela
National Forest designated all three areas as ``semiprimitive
nonmotorized'' in order to help maintain their roadless attributes over
time while still permitting other established uses.
The Monongahela National Forest has five existing wilderness areas,
all of which offer outstanding wilderness experiences. I have
personally visited some of the seven areas proposed in this bill, and I
believe that all seven areas have outstanding wilderness attributes.
All are rugged forested land minimally affected by outside forces, with
natural processes operating and vestiges of human impacts (such as old
roads and clearcuts) rapidly healing over. Ranging in elevation from
just under 2,000 feet to over 4,000 feet, these landscapes harbor rare
ecosystems (such as high-elevation red spruce) and habitat for
federally listed species.
That is why the Monongahela National Forest recommended four of the
seven areas for wilderness study in its revised forest plan in 2006:
Cheat Mountain, Cranberry Expansion, Dry Fork Expansion, and Roaring
Plains West. These units represent nearly 27,700 acres recommended for
wilderness study. The Department supports their inclusion in this bill.
In its forest plan revision, after consulting with the public, the
Monongahela National Forest decided not to include Big Draft, the Dolly
Sods Expansion, and Spice Run among the areas recommended for
wilderness. Instead, we designated all three as semiprimitive
nonmotorized areas, one of the most restrictive allocations that the
Forest Service can give. This management prescription protects their
naturalness while permitting such popular and relatively low-impact
uses as mountain biking. It also allows the manipulation of vegetation
to create wildlife openings.
However, we recognize the wilderness eligibility of all three
areas, and their designation as wilderness would be consistent with
values that the Monongahela National Forest's revised forest plan is
designed to protect. In other locations, the Monongahela National
Forest maintains opportunities for mountain biking and for manipulating
vegetation to improve wildlife habitat. Therefore, the Department would
not object to including Big Draft, the Dolly Sods Expansion, and Spice
Run in this bill if boundary adjustments and other issues are
addressed.
If all seven areas are designated as wilderness, we would suggest
adjusting some of the proposed boundaries to avoid conflicts and make
the wilderness areas more manageable. Some proposed boundaries appear
to be based on the boundaries of the roadless areas analyzed during the
2006 forest plan revision. Those roadless area boundaries were not
intended to define wilderness boundaries. Adjustments should be made to
account for mapping errors; to provide access to state and private
land; to exclude developed sites and managed wildlife openings; to add
offsets for powerlines and other features inconsistent with wilderness;
and to align the boundaries with existing wilderness boundaries.
The largest boundary question regards the southwestern corner of
the proposed Spice Run unit, an area of 974 acres. This area lies
outside the area that the Monongahela National Forest evaluated for
wilderness in its 2006 forest plan because it did not meet the criteria
for roadless areas. Should it become designated wilderness, motorized
access to three adjacent parcels of private land could become an issue.
We would like to work with the bill's sponsors and the subcommittee
to adjust the boundaries to accommodate these and other concerns. The
Forest Service has prepared a set of proposed boundary adjustments,
taking care to ensure that our proposed adjustments would not detract
from the overall wilderness legislation. We would welcome the
opportunity to provide this information to the subcommittee.
Removing most of the structures incompatible with wilderness would
not be necessary if our proposed boundary adjustments were made. Even
with the adjustments, however, a hiking shelter and about 9 miles of
road would remain within the wilderness boundaries. The shelter would
likely be allowed to deteriorate and then be removed. Unless converted
to trails, the roads (currently closed to vehicular traffic) would
require decommissioning to protect water quality and other natural
resource values. The Monongahela National Forest would conduct an
analysis to determine the appropriate management actions and then make
the investments needed, subject to available appropriations, to remove
culverts, construct trail, or contour the land to reduce erosion.
We strongly support the spirit of this legislation, and we confirm
that all seven areas proposed for wilderness designation meet the
criteria for wilderness. Working with the subcommittee, we are
confident that we can remedy boundary deficiencies and establish final
wilderness boundaries that are sound and manageable.
The House Committee on Natural Resources approved an Amendment in
the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 5151. This amendment includes
updated acreage figures resulting from boundary adjustments to the Big
Draft Wilderness, the Cranberry Expansion, the Dolly Sods Expansion,
the Otter Creek Expansion Proposed Wilderness, the Roaring Plains West
Wilderness, and the Spice Run Wilderness. These adjustments address
concerns raised by the Department in our previous testimony, and we
support them.
H.R. 5151, as amended, allows for the continuation of a competitive
running event in the vicinity of the Dolly Sods Wilderness and the
Roaring Plains West Wilderness. Forest Service policy does not permit
competitive events in wilderness. Our intent would be to work with the
sponsors to find a suitable alternative for the competitive event.
Section 3 was added to H.R. 5151 to adjust the boundary to the
Laurel Fork South Wilderness by 123 acres. Section 4 was added to
confirm that the Monongahela National Forest boundary includes recently
acquired tracts of land. The Department supports these changes to the
bill. Section 4 should be amended to include reference to the Land and
Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) because expenditures of LWCFA funds
are restricted to forest boundaries as they existed on the original
date of the Act.
s. 2109
The Department of Agriculture supports S. 2109, if amended.
S. 2109 would create two new wildernesses on the San Bernardino
National Forest, and would add additional acreage to existing
designated wilderness on the Cleveland and San Bernardino National
Forests. It would also designate stretches of four rivers on the San
Bernardino National Forest as components of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. This bill would also expand the boundaries of the
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument.
There are discrepancies between the proposed wilderness
designations in the bill and the revisions to the forest plans for the
Southern California forests (Forest Plan), for which the Record of
Decision was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2006. Of
the 30,630 acres S. 2109 proposes for wilderness, only (approximately)
800 acres overlap with the Forest Plan's recommendation for wilderness.
Discrepancies also exist between the proposed designations under the
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Forest Plan.
The Forest Service has always been a champion of wilderness. We
believe that wilderness designation is special, and as a general
principle, that natural processes should be allowed to work in
wilderness without intervention. However, natural process may pose
potential conflicts with other priorities or land use objectives such
as protection from wildland fire. When situations arise, such as fuel
buildup, climate change, and an expanding urban interface, our
preference is still for natural processes to dominate.
During the revision process, most of these proposed wilderness
designations were determined not to meet criteria for wilderness
suitability. The areas were found unsuitable because of current or
potential uses that would conflict with wilderness designation such as
reduction of hazardous fuels (mechanical treatments and prescribed
burning), elements of fire management (including Burned Area Emergency
Response--BAER treatments), current recreational uses (e.g., mountain
bikes), grazing improvement maintenance, existing protections (Research
Natural Area), habitat management for threatened and endangered
species, external influences and the availability of nearby wilderness.
For example, the portion of the Agua Tibia Wilderness addition in
the Cleveland National Forest that would be designated by the bill is
not the same as the area of National Forest recommended for wilderness
designation in the Forest Plan. The Department does not support the
addition of the area that was not recommended in the Forest Plan. We
defer to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for its part of this
proposal.
The Cahuilla Mountain Proposed Wilderness in the San Bernardino
National Forest also was found not to meet Forest Service wilderness
criteria during the Forest Plan revision process. We continue to
support the Forest Plan's final recommendation, developed with public
involvement. Therefore, the Department does not support this proposed
addition.
Section 104(f)(2) of the bill contains provisions related to access
and use of the Cahuilla Mountain Wilderness by members of an Indian
tribe for traditional cultural and religious purposes, including
temporarily closing areas to the general public for use by members of
an Indian tribe. The Department supports and encourages providing
access to tribes consistent with PL 95-341 (also known as the American
Indian Religious Freedom Act) but we do not support the provision in
the bill. To that end, the Forest Service has directives that allow for
voluntary temporary closures to protect privacy for tribes in the
conduct of traditional cultural activities. We would like to work with
the bill's sponsor, the Subcommittee, and the Department of Justice to
address these concerns.
The proposed South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness on the San
Bernardino National Forest was found not to meet the wilderness
criteria during the revision process. The South Fork San Jacinto area
is a combination of two inventoried roadless areas with the same issues
as the Cahuilla proposal. The Department does not support this area to
be designated as wilderness. We remain in support of our Forest Plan
recommendation to manage this area as backcountry allowing greater
flexibility to address resource management needs.
Additionally, during the revision process thirteen acres of Cactus
Springs Inventoried Roadless Area were recommended as an addition to
the Santa Rosa Wilderness. The Department supports this 13-acre
addition, and defer to the Bureau of Land Management for its portion of
the addition.
Although a suitability study has not been conducted for the four
rivers that would be designated by the bill, the Department does not
oppose their addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
based on general support by the communities of interest and consistency
of the designation with the management of the National Forest System
lands within the river corridors. We wish, however, to work with the
Committee to clarify river management and address differences between
mileage and classifications in this bill and those in the Forest Plan.
The Department fully supports that portion of the expansion of the
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument under National
Forest management.
We would like to work with the Subcommittee, to remedy the
inconsistencies this bill has with our California Forest Plan
Revisions.
s. 2124
This legislation directs the Secretary to convey for no
consideration, all right, title, and interest in 10 acres of land
within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests to Jefferson County,
Montana to be used for cemetery purposes. The Department is supportive
of S. 2124, but would recommend that this bill provide consideration to
the Federal government for the conveyance.
The parcel to be conveyed to Jefferson County is currently being
used for cemetery purposes but a special use authorization has never
been issued for this purpose. The 10-acre conveyance will provide a
sufficient amount of land to accommodate all known grave sites and any
additional sites that may be outside of the concentration of known
sites. In addition the conveyance is of adequate size to include the
cemetery parking lot so that it will be located on private property.
The parcel to be conveyed is a National Register eligible property that
contributes to the significance of the Elkhorn town site and the
Elkhorn historic mining district. The bill provides for the continued
protection of the historic and cultural values associated with the site
but does not exempt the Forest Service from its obligations to comply
with the National Historic Preservation Act, or any other law, at the
time of transfer.
We are concerned about conveying public land to other jurisdictions
without any form of consideration. The Department does not object to
making the Federal land available for use as a cemetery, but requests
that the conveyance of the public land estate include consideration for
the market value of the property and for the administrative costs
associated with the conveyance. The Department does not support the
reversion of the lands back to the Secretary should this bill be
enacted.
This concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Ms. Daly.
STATEMENT OF ELENA DALY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
CONSERVATION SYSTEM, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Ms. Daly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee.
I'd like to thank you for inviting the Department of the
Interior to testify on a number of bills before the
subcommittee.
S. 2109, the California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act,
designates wilderness throughout Riverside County, California,
on land managed by the BLM, the Park Service, and the Forest
Service. It also expands the Santa Rosa and Santa Jacinto
National Monument.
The Department of the Interior supports 2107 as it applies
to BLM and NPS designations but would like the opportunity to
work with the subcommittee on a number of clarifications.
Specifically, we would like to work with the sponsors and
the committee on some boundary adjustments. Given the growing
need for renewable energy in this area, we are particularly
sensitive to ensuring that renewable energy needs are properly
accommodated.
Some of the boundaries, as presently constituted, may pose
problems for future renewable energy transmission needs and we
would like to work with the sponsors of the bill and the
committee to adjust those boundaries.
We defer to the Department of Agriculture on those
designations on Forest Service-managed lands, and I am
accompanied by Karen Taylor Goodrich, Associate Director,
Visitor and Resource Protection, who will join me at the table
to answer any questions you may have related to the National
Park Service and S. 2109.
This bill is a result of the multiyear process undertaken
by the California Congressional Delegation. This public process
included engaging elected officials, interest groups, local
communities, and the affected land-managing agencies.
We appreciate these efforts as we believe that local input
and consensus-building processes are essential ingredients to
successful wilderness bills.
S. 758, the Nevada Cancer Institute Expansion Act, would
convey without consideration 80 acres to the city of Las Vegas,
Nevada, for the development of a cancer treatment facility and
adjoining park, a flood control project, a water pumping
facility, and other commercial projects.
While the BLM supports the goals of S. 758 and the House
companion bill, H.R. 1311, we cannot support the bill unless
there are additional modifications. The bill should be modified
to ensure that the conveyances outlined in Section 3(a)
guarantee a fair return to the public and are consistent with
existing conveyance authorities.
In addition, many of the purposes could be accomplished
administratively and we would be happy to work with the city of
Las Vegas, the Flood Control District, and others toward this
end.
While some of our concerns were addressed in H.R. 1311 as
passed by the House of Representatives on March 4th of this
year, we urge the committee to make the additional
modifications described in our testimony.
Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Daly follow:]
Prepared Statement of Elena Daly, Director, National Landscape
Conservation System, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify on S. 758, the Nevada Cancer
Institute Expansion Act. H.R. 1311, the companion bill to S.
758, passed the House on March 4, 2008 and, as requested by the
Committee, I'll also address H.R. 1311, as amended. While we
support the goals of S. 758 and H.R. 1311, as amended, we
cannot support the bills without modifications.
S. 758
S. 758 would convey without consideration approximately 80
acres of public lands (the ``Alta-Hualapai'' site) to the City
of Las Vegas, Nevada, for the development of a cancer treatment
facility, an adjoining park, a flood control project, a water
pumping facility, and other commercial projects. While the BLM
supports the goals of S. 758, we cannot support the bill unless
there are major clarifications and modifications to make it
consistent with our existing conveyance authorities and
standard BLM practices.
The 80 acres proposed for conveyance under S. 758 are part
of a larger parcel of land totaling 320 acres that was patented
to the City in 1963 under the Recreation and Public Purposes
Act (R&PP). The Federal government retains a reversionary
interest in these lands if they are not used for the specific
purposes for which they were transferred. A significant portion
of this parcel of land was developed as the Angel Park Golf
Course; however, the 80 acres proposed for conveyance under
this bill remain undeveloped.
S. 758 provides that the City may convey without
consideration portions of these lands to the Nevada Cancer
Institute for the development of a new treatment facility and
to the Las Vegas Valley Water District for the development of
the pumping facility. The United States would retain a
reversionary interest only for the portions the City conveys.
The bill also provides that if the City conveys portions of
the site for the other purposes specified in section 3(a) of
the bill that it must receive not less than fair market value
and that the revenues received from the sales of these lands be
distributed according to the formula outlined in Section
4(e)(1) of the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act
(SNPLMA), which allows for 85 percent of the proceeds from the
land sales to be deposited in the special account established
under SNPLMA; 10 percent paid directly to the Southern Nevada
Water Authority; and 5 percent paid directly to the State of
Nevada for use in the state's general education program. It is
unclear whether or not the development of an adjacent park and
the flood control project would involve the City selling the
land.
While BLM is generally supportive of the intentions of S.
758, we believe that the bill should be modified to ensure that
the conveyances outlined in Section 3(a) guarantee a fair
return to the public and are consistent with existing
conveyance authorities. Where the conveyances are for public
purposes, they should be done consistent with the R&PP Act. The
R&PP Act provides for conveyances at less than fair market
value in certain circumstances. For example, the provisions in
the R&PP Act provide for a 50 percent reduction in value of
conveyances to non-profit entities, such as the Nevada Cancer
Institute. However, the Administration recognizes that there
may, indeed, be circumstances in which the public benefits of a
proposed transfer outweigh financial considerations.
For the portions of land that are intended to be used for
the development of commercial projects, we recommend that S.
758 be amended to direct the BLM to sell the identified lands
at auction or through a modified competitive sale and
consistent with SNPLMA. In contrast, the bill, as drafted,
would require that the Secretary convey the property to the
City of Las Vegas, which, in turn, could convey it for ``not
less than fair market value.'' Such an amendment would
eliminate the unnecessary step of conveying the land to the
City, would ensure a fair return to the public, and would be
consistent with standard BLM practices.
It is also possible that the specified uses identified in
Section 3(a), such as the flood control project and the water
pumping facility, can be administratively accomplished through
the granting of rights-of-ways. The BLM would be happy to work
with the City, the Flood Control District, and others in this
effort.
H.R. 1311
H.R. 1311 was introduced in the House of Representatives on
March 5, 2007. The BLM testified on H.R 1311, a companion bill
to S. 758, on October 23, 2007. The bill, as amended, passed
the House on March 4, 2008, incorporating some but not all of
our suggested changes.
Section 3 of H.R. 1311 requires the Secretary to convey to
the Nevada Cancer Institute the portion of the 80 acre Alta-
Hualapai Site needed for a cancer facility. It also requires
the Secretary to convey to the City the remaining portion of
the site needed for ancillary medical or nonprofit uses. All
conveyances by the Secretary are at no cost, except for costs
associated with title transfers or land surveys, at the
discretion of the Secretary. Further conveyances by the City
shall be ``for no less than fair market value'' and the
proceeds are to be distributed in accordance with SNPLMA. To
implement the conveyances, the bill directs the City to prepare
a land survey that conforms to BLM's cadastral survey
standards, and it provides for relinquishment of the R&PP site.
The bill in Section 4 authorizes the Secretary to grant rights-
of way to the Las Vegas Water District for a flood control
project and water pumping facility. Under Section 5, the United
States retains a reversionary interest on all conveyed lands.
Consistent with our views on S. 758 and prior testimony on
H.R. 1311, as amended, our overarching interest is that
conveyances of public lands be in accordance with existing
conveyance authorities and guarantee a fair return to the
public. H.R. 1311, as passed, partially fulfills these
objectives. The bill provides for administrative grants of
rights-of-way to the Water District, consistent with FLPMA, to
authorize the flood control project and water pumping facility.
We are pleased this provision utilizes BLM's existing
conveyance practices and authorities, and reflects the comments
raised in our previous testimony on H.R. 1311. The bill also
directs the City to conduct a land survey that conforms with
the BLM's cadastral survey standards. We support this provision
because it applies standard administrative practices.
However, other key provisions of H.R. 1311, as amended, are
not consistent with existing authorities and we cannot support
the bill without additional modifications. Consistent with our
views on S.758, we support the purpose of the conveyance to the
Nevada Cancer Institute, but it should be done in accordance
with the R&PP Act to ensure a fair return to the public. While
the bill provides for lands to be conveyed to the City at no
cost, and for further conveyance by the City at ``no less than
fair market value'', it is not clear if the lands conveyed to
the City are intended to be used for non-profit or commercial
purposes. Again, to ensure a fair return to the public, we
believe that conveyances for public purposes should be
consistent with the R&PP Act, while conveyances for commercial
purposes should be consistent with SNPLMA and offered by the
BLM at auction or through a modified competitive sale.
Finally, H.R. 1311, as amended, requires the Secretary to
report to Congress, within 180 days of enactment, on all
transactions conducted under SNPLMA.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 758 and H.R.
1311, as amended. I will be happy to answer any questions.
S. 2109
Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 2109, the
California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act. The Department of
the Interior supports S. 2109 as it applies to BLM and NPS
designations but would like the opportunity to work with the
subcommittee on a number of clarifications, including acreage
and mapping adjustments. We defer to the Department of
Agriculture on those designations on National Forest System
lands.
The Department strongly supports Congressional efforts to
resolve wilderness designations throughout the West, and we
welcome this opportunity to further those efforts. Only
Congress can determine whether to designate Wilderness Study
Areas (WSAs) as wilderness or release them for other multiple
uses. We support the resolution of WSA issues and stand ready
to work with Congress toward this goal.
S. 2109 designates wilderness throughout Riverside County,
California on lands managed by the BLM, National Park Service
(NPS) and Forest Service. It also expands the BLM and Forest
Service-managed Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument (designated by Public Law 106-351) as well as
designates a number of Wild and Scenic rivers under the
management of the Forest Service.
S. 2109, as introduced, includes acreage numbers that do
not match area descriptions or the maps provided to the
sponsors by the Department. We are working with the sponsor and
the subcommittee to make appropriate corrections. Our
discussions of the bill in this testimony will reflect the
updated acreage numbers.
Title I designates four new wilderness areas: Beauty
Mountain and Pinto Mountains Wilderness to be managed by the
BLM as well as Cahuilla Mountain and South Fork San Jacinto
Wilderness to be managed by the Forest Service.
The proposed new Beauty Mountain Wilderness would cover
over 15,000 acres of BLMmanaged lands. It is one of the last
undeveloped areas in the region; numerous outside groups
recognize both its significance as open space and the important
resource values of Beauty Mountain. We should note that the
boundary for Beauty Mountain is arbitrarily set at the
Riverside County line. The second new BLM wilderness area,
Pinto Mountains wilderness, lies just to the north of the
National Park Service's Joshua Tree National Park and
wilderness. Much has changed in these areas during the last 15
years. In 1994, the California Desert Protection Act changed
the management landscape in the entire California desert. That
same year, much of the area was designated as critical habitat
for the threatened desert tortoise. This area is important
habitat for the desert bighorn sheep. Many inholdings have been
acquired by the State, private groups, or BLM that made this
area more manageable and enhanced their wilderness
characteristics. Far fewer mining claims exist in the area than
were therel5 years ago. These areas are currently primarily
non-motorized.
In addition, Title I expands six existing wilderness areas
that were designated under Public Law 103-433 the California
Desert Protection Act and earlier wilderness bills: Agua Tibia,
Orocopia Mountains, Palen/McCoy, and Chuckwalla Mountains
Wilderness managed by the BLM; Joshua Tree National Park
Wilderness managed by NPS; and additions to the Santa Rosa
Wilderness within Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National
Monument managed by both the BLM and the Forest Service. The
expansions, which will improve manageability, protect important
resource values and improve dispersed recreational
opportunities, range from a mere 500-acre addition to the
existing Agua Tibia Wilderness to a large 23,000-acre addition
to the Palen/McCoy Wilderness. Other additions include 5,000
acres to the Orocopia Mountains Wilderness and 13,000 acres to
the Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness. These expanded wilderness
designations are possible now because of acquisitions of land
by the BLM and changes in on-the-ground conditions that have
occurred since the original wilderness designations.
Within the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park, section
102(f) of S. 2109 designates 36,800 acres of land in non-
contiguous parcels as wilderness. All of these lands are
wilderness quality. Of these acres, about 8,400 acres were
designated only as potential wilderness as part of the original
wilderness designation for Joshua Tree National Park in 1976
(Public Law 94-567), because they were privately owned or used
for non-wilderness purposes. The lands now are owned by the
National Park Service and are appropriate for wilderness
designation. Another 28,400 acres, owned by the National Park
Service, are located in a roadless area west of the Cottonwood
Entrance. A draft study conducted by the National Park Service
supports wilderness designation for these lands.
Section 103 of S. 2109 designates as potential wilderness
approximately 43,100 acres of land along the park's
southwestern boundary. This area is physically inaccessible and
has no available water source. As such, the park already is
managing this area as wilderness. About one-third of the
acreage is in private ownership, and the National Park Service
has been working to acquire these lands with donated funds, on
a willing-seller basis. While we recognize the Congress'
authority to designate this area as potential wilderness, we
would like to work with the sponsor and the subcommittee to
further clarify some ambiguities in this section.
Finally, Title III of S. 2109 expands the boundary of the
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument by
approximately 8,360 acres, designating 2,990 of those acres as
wilderness inside the monument. Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains National Monument was originally designated by Public
Law 106-351. Since then, the communities, agencies, and other
interested members of the public in the Coachella Valley have
strongly embraced the Monument and take great pride in their
many achievements towards making the Monument a success story.
The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument
Advisory Committee fully participated in the development of a
management plan that is now in the implementation phase. We
support this proposed expansion, which would enhance
manageability of the monument and expand protection of
important habitat for the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep.
S. 2109 is a result of a multi-year process undertaken by
the California Congressional delegation. This public process
included engaging elected officials, interest groups, local
communities, and the affected land managing agencies. We
appreciate these efforts as we believe that local input and
consensus-building are essential ingredients to successful
wilderness bills. As this bill moves forward, we look forward
to the opportunity to work with the Committee on the
corrections and amendments discussed in this testimony and to
ensure that the maps most accurately reflect the intended
boundaries.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
Mr. Bisson.
STATEMENT OF HENRI BISSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Bisson. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
while I was introduced as Deputy Director for BLM, I'm here in
my capacity as the Acting Senior Advisor to the Secretary on
Alaskan Affairs, and I appreciate this opportunity to testify
and will briefly summarize my testimony today.
This Act would convey land from the Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge to the State of Alaska for the purpose of
constructing a road and would convey other non-Federal lands to
the Izembek and Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuges and
designate a portion of those additions as wilderness.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is reviewing the proposal to
assess the potential impacts, potential benefits and values for
wildlife and wilderness resources. Additionally, the
Administration has identified several technical issues in the
legislation that we believe must be addressed and these are
included in my written statement.
The communities of King Cove and Cold Bay are located in
the westernmost region of the Alaska Peninsula. These
communities are accessible only by sea or air. King Cove and
Cold Bay are separated by less than 20 miles but there is no
road between the two communities.
For many years, local residents have advocated the building
of a road between the two communities across the Izembek Refuge
and Wilderness for both transportation accessibility and
safety. Until last year, transportation options between the
communities were limited to private boats and commuter air
service. Residents believe that the area's stormy weather makes
these modes of transport unsafe, especially during medical
emergencies when rapid transport to hospitals in Anchorage is
essential.
In 1997, legislation was introduced in the House and the
Senate but did not pass. This would have resulted in
construction of a road through the refuge and wilderness. To
address community concerns, Congress appropriated $37.5 million
in Fiscal Year 1999 for critical health and safety needs while
avoiding building a road through the refuge and wilderness.
Twenty million dollars was provided to construct a road-
hovercraft link between King Cove and Cold Bay. Fifteen million
dollars was for improvements to the King Cove Airstrip and $2.5
million was for a major renovation of King Cove Health Clinic.
The State of Alaska determined that King Cove's location,
as Senator Murkowski alluded to, in the valley prevented
improvements to the airport to accommodate jets. So roughly $9
million of the funds were then spent on a hovercraft and
additional funds were directed to the road.
In 2006, the Alaska Aleutians East Borough constructed a
one-lane gravel road from the King Cove Airstrip to a temporary
hovercraft dock four miles away where a hovercraft recently
began carrying up to 49 passenger, an ambulance and cargo to
and from Cold Bay. This marine road system was a preferred
alternative, evaluated in a 2003 final EIS completed by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
The Administration recognizes the legitimate needs of the
Alaska residents to have access to medical, dental and other
health care. At the same time, we must also fulfill our
obligation to the American public to ensure that any decisions
affecting public trust are decided in the best interests of the
American public.
Dale Hall, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service,
visited Izembek Refuge and flew over the areas being proposed
for conveyance. He met with the residents of King Cove and Cold
Bay and discussed this issue with them. To date, the Department
of the Interior has opposed proposals to build a road through
the refuge and wilderness because of the impact on the
wilderness values and biological resources within the refuge.
However, over the last year and a half, the Service has met
numerous times with representatives of the State of Alaska,
Aleutian East Borough and the King Cove Corporation to discuss
various interests in lands that now comprise the acres
described in S. 1680.
The bill offers more than 61,000 acres of State and private
lands in exchange for 1,600 acres of national wildlife refuge
land. Of that, more than 41,000 acres would be exchanged to
make up for 206 acres of wilderness lands. This proposal would
offer approximately 38 acres for every acre of wetland and
wildlife habitat and over 200 acres per every acre of
wilderness exchange which is a good deal for the refuge.
Therefore, the Administration supports this exchange,
subject to NEPA and several technical changes we would be happy
to work with you on.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Bisson follow:]
Prepared Statement of Henri Bisson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior
s. 2109
Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 2109, the California
Desert and Mountain Heritage Act. The Department of the Interior
supports S. 2109 as it applies to BLM and NPS designations but would
like the opportunity to work with the subcommittee on a number of
clarifications, including acreage and mapping adjustments. We defer to
the Department of Agriculture on those designations on National Forest
System lands.
The Department strongly supports Congressional efforts to resolve
wilderness designations throughout the West, and we welcome this
opportunity to further those efforts. Only Congress can determine
whether to designate Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) as wilderness or
release them for other multiple uses. We support the resolution of WSA
issues and stand ready to work with Congress toward this goal.
S. 2109 designates wilderness throughout Riverside County,
California on lands managed by the BLM, National Park Service (NPS) and
Forest Service. It also expands the BLM and Forest Service-managed
Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument (designated by
Public Law 106-351) as well as designates a number of Wild and Scenic
rivers under the management of the Forest Service.
S. 2109, as introduced, includes acreage numbers that do not match
area descriptions or the maps provided to the sponsors by the
Department. We are working with the sponsor and the subcommittee to
make appropriate corrections. Our discussions of the bill in this
testimony will reflect the updated acreage numbers.
Title I designates four new wilderness areas: Beauty Mountain and
Pinto Mountains Wilderness to be managed by the BLM as well as Cahuilla
Mountain and South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness to be managed by the
Forest Service.
The proposed new Beauty Mountain Wilderness would cover over 15,000
acres of BLM-managed lands. It is one of the last undeveloped areas in
the region; numerous outside groups recognize both its significance as
open space and the important resource values of Beauty Mountain. We
should note that the boundary for Beauty Mountain is arbitrarily set at
the Riverside County line. The second new BLM wilderness area, Pinto
Mountains wilderness, lies just to the north of the National Park
Service's Joshua Tree National Park and wilderness. Much has changed in
these areas during the last 15 years. In 1994, the California Desert
Protection Act changed the management landscape in the entire
California desert. That same year, much of the area was designated as
critical habitat for the threatened desert tortoise. This area is
important habitat for the desert bighorn sheep. Many inholdings have
been acquired by the State, private groups, or BLM that made this area
more manageable and enhanced their wilderness characteristics. Far
fewer mining claims exist in the area than were there15 years ago.
These areas are currently primarily non-motorized.
In addition, Title I expands six existing wilderness areas that
were designated under Public Law 103-433 the California Desert
Protection Act and earlier wilderness bills: Agua Tibia, Orocopia
Mountains, Palen/McCoy, and Chuckwalla Mountains Wilderness managed by
the BLM; Joshua Tree National Park Wilderness managed by NPS; and
additions to the Santa Rosa Wilderness within Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto Mountains National Monument managed by both the BLM and the
Forest Service. The expansions, which will improve manageability,
protect important resource values and improve dispersed recreational
opportunities, range from a mere 500-acre addition to the existing Agua
Tibia Wilderness to a large 23,000-acre addition to the Palen/McCoy
Wilderness. Other additions include 5,000 acres to the Orocopia
Mountains Wilderness and 13,000 acres to the Chuckwalla Mountains
Wilderness. These expanded wilderness designations are possible now
because of acquisitions of land by the BLM and changes in on-the-ground
conditions that have occurred since the original wilderness
designations.
Within the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park, section 102(f) of
S. 2109 designates 36,800 acres of land in non-contiguous parcels as
wilderness. All of these lands are wilderness quality. Of these acres,
about 8,400 acres were designated only as potential wilderness as part
of the original wilderness designation for Joshua Tree National Park in
1976 (Public Law 94-567), because they were privately owned or used for
non-wilderness purposes. The lands now are owned by the National Park
Service and are appropriate for wilderness designation. Another 28,400
acres, owned by the National Park Service, are located in a roadless
area west of the Cottonwood Entrance. A draft study conducted by the
National Park Service supports wilderness designation for these lands.
Section 103 of S. 2109 designates as potential wilderness
approximately 43,100 acres of land along the park's southwestern
boundary. This area is physically inaccessible and has no available
water source. As such, the park already is managing this area as
wilderness. About one-third of the acreage is in private ownership, and
the National Park Service has been working to acquire these lands with
donated funds, on a willing-seller basis. While we recognize the
Congress' authority to designate this area as potential wilderness, we
would like to work with the sponsor and the subcommittee to further
clarify some ambiguities in this section.
Finally, Title III of S. 2109 expands the boundary of the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument by approximately 8,360
acres, designating 2,990 of those acres as wilderness inside the
monument. Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument was
originally designated by Public Law 106-351. Since then, the
communities, agencies, and other interested members of the public in
the Coachella Valley have strongly embraced the Monument and take great
pride in their many achievements towards making the Monument a success
story. The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument
Advisory Committee fully participated in the development of a
management plan that is now in the implementation phase. We support
this proposed expansion, which would enhance manageability of the
monument and expand protection of important habitat for the endangered
Peninsular bighorn sheep.
S. 2109 is a result of a multi-year process undertaken by the
California Congressional delegation. This public process included
engaging elected officials, interest groups, local communities, and the
affected land managing agencies. We appreciate these efforts as we
believe that local input and consensus-building are essential
ingredients to successful wilderness bills. As this bill moves forward,
we look forward to the opportunity to work with the Committee on the
corrections and amendments discussed in this testimony and to ensure
that the maps most accurately reflect the intended boundaries.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
s. 1680
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Henri Bisson,
Acting Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Alaska Affairs, and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today on S. 1680, the ``Izembek
And Alaska Peninsula Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement Act of 2007.''
This Act would convey land from the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge to
the State of Alaska for the purpose of constructing a road, and would
convey other non-Federal lands to the Izembek and Alaska Maritime
National Wildlife Refuges and designate a portion of those additions as
Wilderness.
When evaluating proposals such as the one outlined in S. 1680, we
must ensure that any change in the public estate improves the
ecological and social values available to the public. In that spirit,
the Administration could support S. 1680 if it is amended to ensure
that a full National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of the
proposed exchange is required, including an analysis of the impacts of
the road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The NEPA analysis
would provide a full disclosure of the impacts and benefits of the
exchange and allow for public input into the decision-making process.
The Service is currently reviewing the proposal to assess the potential
benefits, values, and costs to wildlife and wilderness areas. These
efforts will help inform the NEPA process. Additionally, we have
identified some technical issues in the legislation that we believe
must be addressed.
background
The communities of King Cove and Cold Bay are located in the
westernmost region of the Alaska Peninsula. These communities are
accessible only by sea or air. King Cove and Cold Bay are separated by
less than twenty miles, but there is no road between the two
communities. For many years the residents of the Aleutians East Borough
and King Cove have advocated building a road between King Cove and Cold
Bay, across the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness for both transportation
accessibility and safety. Until last year transportation options
between the communities were limited to private boats and commuter air
service. Residents believe that the area's stormy weather makes these
modes of transport unsafe, especially during medical emergencies when
rapid transport to Anchorage hospitals requires reaching Cold Bay's
all-weather airport.
In 1997, legislation was introduced in, but did not pass, the House
and Senate that would have resulted in construction of a road through
the Izembek Refuge and Wilderness to address critical health and safety
needs of the King Cove community. To address these needs, Congress
appropriated $37.5 million for a compromise in the Fiscal Year 1999
Consolidated Appropriations Bill that addressed the critical health and
safety needs while avoiding building a road through the Izembek Refuge
and Wilderness. Specifically, $20 million was provided to construct a
road-hovercraft link between King Cove and Cold Bay, $15 million was
for improvements to the King Cove airstrip, and $2.5 million was for a
major renovation of the King Cove health clinic. The State of Alaska
determined that King Cove's location in a valley prevented improvements
to the airport to accommodate jets. Roughly $9 million of the funds
were then spent on a hovercraft and additional funds were directed to
the road.
In 2006, the Aleutians East Borough constructed a one-lane gravel
road from the King Cove airstrip to a temporary hovercraft dock four
miles away where a hovercraft now carries up to 49 passengers, an
ambulance, and cargo to and from Cold Bay. An additional 14 miles of
road beyond the temporary hovercraft dock have been completed or are
under construction. The road does not extend into the Izembek Refuge or
Wilderness, a requirement of the 1999 legislation providing the funding
for the road. This marine-road system was the preferred alternative
evaluated in a 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement completed by
the Army Corps of Engineers. That FEIS, which contained a partial
analysis of a road only alternative, concluded that impact intensities
for the road only alternative varied from negligible to significant.
After six months of training and practice runs, on August 7, 2007,
the hovercraft known as the Suna-X began its commercial service runs
between King Cove and Cold Bay. King Cove residents, however, continue
to seek a road linking their community with Cold Bay due to concerns
about the reliability of the hovercraft in severe weather and
uncertainty about future funding for the operational costs associated
with the hovercraft.
The Administration recognizes the legitimate needs of Alaska
residents to have access to medical, dental, and other health care. At
the same time, we must also fulfill our obligation to the American
public to ensure that any decisions we make regarding lands held, and
resources managed, in the public trust are decided in the best
interests of the American public. Dale Hall, Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service visited Izembek Refuge and its
significant wildlife values, and flew over the areas being proposed for
conveyance; he met with the residents of King Cove and Cold Bay and
discussed this issue with them.
izembek national wildlife refuge
At approximately 315,000 acres, Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is
the smallest and one of the most ecologically unique of Alaska's
refuges. Most of the Refuge, about 300,000 acres, was designated as
Wilderness in 1980 under the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. Izembek is internationally renowned for having some
of the most striking wildlife diversity and wilderness values in the
northern hemisphere.
At the heart of the Refuge is the 150-square mile Izembek Lagoon.
The lagoon and its associated state-owned tidal lands have been
protected by the State of Alaska since 1960 as the Izembek State Game
Refuge. Here, shallow, brackish water covers one of the world's largest
beds of eelgrass, creating a rich feeding and resting area for hundreds
of thousands of waterfowl. Virtually the entire world's population of
Pacific black brant, Taverner's Canada goose, and emperor goose inhabit
the lagoon each fall. Steller's eiders, a species listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act, molt and winter in Izembek and
Kinzarof Lagoons.
In addition, the corridor between Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons,
through which the road proposed by this legislation would extend, is
heavily used as a migration route and winter habitat for the Southern
Alaska Peninsula caribou herd. Steller's eiders and sea otters, listed
as threatened species, Pacific black brant, emperor geese and harlequin
ducks use Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons extensively.
To date, the Department of the Interior and the Service have
opposed proposals to build a road through the Izembek Refuge and
Wilderness because of the impact on wilderness values and biological
resources within the refuge. Over the last year and a half the Service
has met numerous times with representatives of the State of Alaska, the
Aleutians East Borough, and the King Cove Corporation to discuss
various interests in lands that now comprise the acreage described in
S. 1680. The bill offers more than 61,000 acres in exchange for 1,600
acres of National Wildlife Refuge lands. Of that, more than 41,000
acres would be exchanged to make up for 206 acres of wilderness lands.
These proposals would offer approximately 38 acres for every acre of
wetlands and wildlife habitat, and over 200 acres for every acre of
wilderness exchanged.
technical considerations
We have reviewed S. 1680 and identified a number of technical
provisions we believe warrant further attention from the Committee as
it considers this bill. For example, we encourage the Committee to
review and amend the bill to remedy legal deficiencies or conflicts
with established federal land laws such as sections 22(g) and 22(i) of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and the wilderness withdrawal
provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Additionally, we note the need for a number of technical corrections
concerning characterizations of ownership and management status of
lands in the vicinity of the proposed road corridor, as well as various
acreage figures provided in the bill. We would also be glad to provide
you with more information on the lengthy and inclusive public
involvement process leading to the 1980 designation of Wilderness
within the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.
Moreover, we have significant concerns about Section 4 of the bill,
which would provide for immediate reconveyance of the 61,723 acres of
non-federal lands back to non-federal ownership if a court injunction
prohibits construction of the road or the State or King Cove
Corporation determine that the road cannot be feasibly constructed or
maintained. As written, this provision shifts the risks of the road
project largely to the public trust. In the event of this reconveyance
there is no provision for a similar reconveyance of the road corridor
back to federal ownership, nor is there provision for mitigation or
rehabilitation of lands damaged by incomplete construction activities.
Additionally, we are concerned about the timeline for which the
Secretary must complete a cooperative planning process; we need to
better understand the compatibility and construction authorization
provisions of the legislation; and treatment of new and existing King
Cove Corporation roads provisions. We hope our continuing review will
assist in this understanding.
We are happy to meet with your staff to discuss these issues in
further detail.
conclusion
In conclusion, I look forward to working with you as you move
forward on this important issue. The Administration could support
passage of this legislation if it were amended to ensure a full NEPA
analysis on the exchange. We have also identified a number of technical
changes and issues with the bill that we would like to work with you
on, as well. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and am happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Bisson, thank you, and I don't want to
make too much mischief, but I found it curious that the
Administration's recommending that with S. 1680 there be a full
NEPA analysis of the proposed exchange since the Administration
has repeatedly pushed for limitations to and exemptions from
NEPA on a variety of issues relating to oil and gas drilling on
public land, but we'll have some questions on those matters
here in a minute.
Let me start with you, if I might, Ms. Daly. It seems on
the California bill, 2109, that one of the major issues is
concerned with how the wilderness designation is going to
affect fire management and it seems that several of the
wilderness areas are additions to previously designated
wilderness areas.
How does the designation of these existing wilderness areas
in some way frustrate your ability to manage fire?
Ms. Daly. Actually, they do not frustrate our ability at
all. The Wilderness Act specifically provides for managers to
be able to use the appropriate equipment and techniques
necessary for the protection of human health and safety, and I
can give you a couple of examples, if I might, as to how this
works.
In Southern California, actually in the Santa Rosa and the
Santa Jacinto National Monument in 2006, there was a very large
wildfire in the Draghonia Wilderness Area. Because we are able
to authorize that through our State directors very quickly, we
were able to build approximately seven miles with a bulldozer
of fire break to protect the locations and the communities
around.
This is not the first time it's happened in that area. The
White River Wilderness totally burned in 1995 and because we
were able to get in there and do the same kinds of techniques,
we were able to assist the community of Morongo and the Capisan
Reservation from being damaged by that fire.
So, we don't see that there are restrictions. We have the
tools necessary.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Holtrop, the Forest Service is objecting
to several of the proposed wilderness designations in the bills
before the subcommittee where the designations aren't
recommended in the Forest Plans.
In contrast, the testimony of the BLM states that the
department strongly supports congressional efforts to resolve
these wilderness designation questions and that only Congress
can designate wilderness areas.
Why does there appear to be such a difference in the way
that the two agencies are approaching wilderness?
Mr. Holtrop. I believe that our testimony is reflective of
the need to honor the public process that's involved in our
forest planning effort. At the same time, we have taken a hard
look at each of the proposed wilderness designations in each of
the bills and looked at what our forest plan designations,
again based on our public involvement process, was and if there
was possibilities for meeting the commitments that we've made
to the public through the designations in these various bills,
we've offered suggestions as to adjustments that could be made
to be successful in accomplishing that.
Senator Wyden. One last question. The California Wilderness
Bill includes language that requires the Forest Service to
amend the applicable management plans within 6 months after the
bill is enacted to authorize forest supervisors to take
whatever appropriate actions are necessary in wilderness areas
for fire prevention.
What's the current role of the forest supervisors in
dealing with this?
Mr. Holtrop. The forest supervisor is the responsible
official at the local level for all fire management activities
and this would just be a continuation of that responsibility.
Senator Wyden. One last question. I think we're going to
have to if we're going to get to all the witnesses and try to
stay within the 5-minute rule.
Just if you could, Mr. Holtrop, tell us briefly why it
would be beneficial to comply with NEPA prior to completing the
proposed exchange.
Mr. Holtrop. This is the Montana Cemetery Act you're
referring to?
Senator Wyden. No, this is the Alaska King Cove.
Mr. Holtrop. I'm not the person for you to be asking that
question.
Senator Wyden. Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. This is for Mr.
Bisson. Excuse me. My apologies.
Mr. Bisson. The Administration feels that the NEPA is
necessary in this case because of the fact that this is a mixed
exchange. If this were an exchange simply between the Native
Corporation and the Fish and Wildlife Service under existing
laws, NEPA wouldn't necessarily be required, but because, I
understand, this includes some State lands in the exchange, we
would not normally be exempt from doing NEPA on this particular
project.
Furthermore, I think that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
concerned that there be full public disclosure about the values
involved in the exchange and that there be some public
discussion about management descriptions related to use of the
lands along the road should it be constructed.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just
follow up with questioning on the NEPA.
Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,
ANILCA, it does permit land exchanges to be done without the
official NEPA analysis and contained within the legislation
that we have in front of us, S. 1680, we've got an exclusive
planning process that is specifically written into the bill to
identify and mitigate potential adverse impacts on the bill.
Can the planning process be structured so that we can reach
agreement about the land exchange? The concern that I have, of
course, is that this gets bogged down in litigation, this gets
drug out by those who would really not want to see a land
exchange take place whatsoever.
Can you speak a little bit more to what we can do with the
planning process that is included in this legislation?
Mr. Bisson. Senator, if Congress passes legislation and the
president signs it telling us to do a land exchange, subject to
NEPA, which is what we're asking for, I view, and I believe
Dale Hall would say he views that planning process as the tool
to try to reach agreement on the management prescriptions in
terms of what activities might be allowed adjacent to the road
and that certainly, I think, would resolve a number of the
concerns that people may have about what may or may not happen
if that road were constructed.
I think the bottom line is that the Administration is
concerned about the health and welfare of the people in King
Cove and feels that, you know, this process is necessary to get
us to an endpoint.
Senator Murkowski. So the planning process should only
cover the location or the routing of the road as opposed to
whether or not we advance with a road, yes or no?
Mr. Bisson. I think it probably depends on what the
legislation says. If the legislation says do a land exchange
for these purposes and we're not excluded from doing NEPA, we
would probably do NEPA on the exchange and the road, but
ultimately and once that process is concluded, we would carry
out the wishes of the Congress.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you. You mentioned Dale Hall.
He was at the House Resources Committee back in October when he
testified at that time on the companion legislation that has
been introduced over there and he expressed at that time that
the land exchange would prove to be a net substantial gain for
the American people, for the refuge and for wilderness.
I'm assuming that that statement is still the department's
position on that, that this in fact is a net gain?
Mr. Bisson. It absolutely is, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. We will hear testimony from several
witnesses on the next panel. We have a representative from the
Audubon Society and in his written statement, Mr. Senner
indicates that the Audubon is opposed to this because the road
is incompatible, he says, ``with the purposes for which the
refuge was established because it would violate congressionally
designated wilderness which deserves great respect.''
Now, I continue to have some problems with the ethics of
designating wilderness that leaves a community of 800 or 1,200
people with no possible road access as a community, but setting
aside that issue, doesn't the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act, doesn't ANILCA expressly contemplate that
transportation corridors can be established through wilderness
areas?
Mr. Bisson. I honestly don't know the answer to that
question, Senator. I can only assume that it does but I don't
know that for a fact.
Senator Murkowski. It does.
Mr. Bisson. OK.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you. Thank you, all. We may have some
additional questions to pose to you in writing. We thank you.
Our next panel, Dr. James Murray, President of the Virginia
Wilderness Committee, Stan Senner, Executive Director and Vice
President of Audubon Alaska, and Della Trumble with the
Agdaagux Tribe in King Cove, Alaska.
Ms. Trumble, while you're getting seated, am I pronouncing
the tribe's name correctly? Agdaaux?
Ms. Trumble. Very good.
Senator Wyden. All right. Good enough for government work.
All right. We thank all of you. Let's go first to Dr.
Murray. All right. Dr. Murray, you've already been saluted by
Senator Warner. Why don't you go? Again, let me ask all of you,
I know the temptation is just to read your prepared statement,
if you could just summarize your principle concerns, that will
leave time for questions.
Dr. Murray.
STATEMENT OF JAMES MURRAY, PRESIDENT, VIRGINIA WILDERNESS
COMMITTEE, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
Mr. Murray. Yes, Chairman Wyden, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on the Virginia Ridge
and Valley Act.
I last appeared before this committee in 1973 when I was
here for the hearing on Senator Jackson's Eastern Wilderness
Areas Act that gave Commonwealth of Virginia its very first
wilderness area, the James River Face.
This Act that we have before us today will designate nearly
43,000 acres of new wilderness and wilderness study areas and
nearly 12,000 acres of scenic areas.
I'd like to commend our two Senators, Senator Warner and
Senator Webb, for their hard work that they have put in on this
bill.
They have listened to all the interested parties, to local
Boards of Supervisors, to members of users groups, hikers,
horseback riders, mountain bikers, and above all members of the
general public, and I have a list here of numerous
organizations that I would like to have entered into the
record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, it will be so ordered.
Mr. Murray. The short answer is that we have a lot of
public support for this in terms of Boards of Supervisors of
four counties, Craig, Montgomery, Bland and Smyth, and lots of
others of which I'll just single out Trout Unlimited, Virginia
Council of Trout Unlimited, and the International Mountain
Bikers Association, and I think this is a first occasion in
which IMBA has endorsed a wilderness area.
Some concerns have been expressed by the Forest Service
about particularly the Brush Mountain Wilderness. Brush
Mountain is unusual in it consists of a very large and very
wild forest area that is almost adjacent to the community of
Blacksburg, Virginia, and to its university, Virginia Tech.
The Forest Service has concerns about the possibility of
fire in the urban forest interface. However, in this case, the
wilderness would be separated from the suburban areas by a road
that runs along the very top of this mountain and by a
substantial area of forest land that is between that road and
the subdivision but which would not be included in the
wilderness.
The wilderness is supported by the homeowners association
of that development and by the Montgomery County Board of
Supervisors.
There's also some question about the management of the
Table Mountain Pine which is a species of pine that is endemic
to the Rocky Ridges of the Southern Appalachians. It's a semi-
serotinous species which means that it takes fire to open the
cones and the Forest Service would like to continue using
managed fire in Brush Mountain to favor this species.
I think there are two points that I can make here. The
first is that we have worked with the Forest Service to exclude
from the wilderness some of the major stands of Table Mountain
Pine, and second, research at Virginia Tech has suggested that
actually Table Mountain Pine now has larger populations than it
did historically because of the logging of the end of the last
century and early in this century where the Table Mountain Pine
has been able to expand its area of habitation beyond its
traditional habitat, so that the species is now retreating to
its favored habitat on the tops of the mountain.
The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act, I think, represents a
truly bipartisan effort to protect some of the finest lands in
the Jefferson National Forest. Its companion bill was supported
in the House by a majority of the Virginia delegation from both
sides of the aisle and we are most grateful to Senators Warner
and Webb for their support in the Senate.
We earnestly solicit your favorable action on this bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Murray, President, Virginia Wilderness
Committee, Charlottesville, VA
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is James Murray, Professor of Biology
Emeritus in the University of Virginia and President of the
Virginia Wilderness Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee in support of the Virginia
Ridge and Valley Act. I last had the privilege of appearing
before your antecedent Committee in 1973, during hearings on
Senator Jackson's Eastern Wilderness Areas Act, which gave the
Commonwealth of Virginia its very first Wilderness, the James
River Face. We have come a long way since then.
S. 570, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act, would designate
nearly 43,000 acres of national forests as wilderness or
wilderness study areas and nearly 12,000 acres as scenic areas.
I should like to commend Senators Warner and Webb, as well as
the House sponsor, Congressman Rick Boucher for their hard work
on this legislation. This bill has taken shape in its current
form under their leadership. In developing this proposal, they
listened to all interested parties including the Forest
Service, other interested Members of Congress, local governing
bodies, representatives of users' groups such as hikers,
horseback riders, and mountain bikers, and, above all, members
of the general public. Today's bill is different from that
which started out in 2001, as changes have been made to
accommodate the various points of view. The result is that it
enjoys wide local support. Four county governing boards have
passed resolutions of endorsement, Craig, Montgomery, Bland,
and Smyth. The list of supporting organizations is very long.
We are most pleased to have received the endorsement of the
Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited and the International
Mountain Bicycling Association, truly a first endorsement of
wilderness by the latter group.
Some concerns have been expressed by representatives of the
Forest Service with respect to the proposed wilderness areas on
Brush Mountain. Brush Mountain is unusual in that it consists
of a very large area of very wild forest, eight and a half
thousand acres if we include the adjacent proposed Brush
Mountain East Wilderness, almost at the back door of the
community of Blacksburg, VA and its university, Virginia Tech.
The Forest Service has concerns about fire in the forest-
suburban interface, and also about their ability to use
prescribed fire in the management of Table Mountain Pine. While
it is no doubt true that management of the suburban interface
poses particular issues, consider what a wonderful resource
this wilderness will be for the University and the community.
We must remember that one of the purposes cited in the
Wilderness Act is the use of wilderness for scientific
research. Also we should note that the possibility of fire
spreading from the wilderness to suburbia is mitigated by the
existence of a road along the crest of Brush Mountain, serving
as a ready-made fire-break, and by a substantial buffer of non-
wilderness national forest land between the road and the
development. The proposed Brush Mountain Wilderness has been
endorsed by the adjacent homeowners' association and the
Montgomery County Board of Supervisors, and the proposed Brush
Mountain East Wilderness has been endorsed by the Craig County
Board of Supervisors.
Table Mountain Pine is an endemic species restricted to
special rocky ridge habitats in the southern Appalachians, and
the Forest Service is concerned that populations may be on the
decline. Since it is a semi-serotinous species, i.e. fire
serves to increase the frequency of germination, the Forest
Service would like to use prescribed fire in sites like Brush
Mountain. Two points can be made here. First, an accommodation
has been made whereby some of the larger stands of Table
Mountain Pine have been excluded from the wilderness proposal.
Second, research at Virginia Tech suggests that the current
extent of the pine populations has resulted from the extensive
logging of a century ago, which allowed the pine to extend its
occupancy into habitats where it would not normally be able to
compete. Hence the current retrenchment as the species retreats
to more favorable habitats. We can therefore reasonably expect
Table Mountain Pine to continue its hold on its preferred
habitat. Populations of Table Mountain Pine can be found in all
the mountain counties of the Jefferson National Forest except
in the Clinch Ranger District in far southwest Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act represents
a truly bi-partisan effort to protect some of the finest lands
in the Jefferson National Forest. Its companion bill was
supported in the House by a majority of the Virginia
delegation, from both sides of the aisle, and we are most
grateful to Senator Warner and Senator Webb for their
unwavering support in the Senate. We earnestly solicit your
favorable action on this bill.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much. Let's go now to you,
Mr. Senner.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY SENNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AUDUBON
ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, AK
Mr. Senner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski.
I'm pleased to be here. Thank you.
Audubon is opposed to the land exchange proposed in S. 1680
for the purpose of building a road between the communities of
King Cove and Cold Bay.
Going back a decade now, Audubon is on record as
recognizing the needs of the people of King Cove with respect
to transportation and we have supported approaches that do not
require a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and
Wilderness.
Specifically, Audubon supported improving the
transportation link between King Cove and Cold Bay with a
combination of a road to Leonard Harbor and a marine link,
preferably a deep draft ferry.
Audubon finds that the road is incompatible with the
purposes for which the refuge was established. The road would
fragment and ultimately degrade what we think are essential
wildlife habitats in the heart of the Izembek Refuge, risking
globally significant populations of migratory birds and, yes,
it would violate congressionally designated wilderness.
The lands proposed for addition to the refuges are
generally not similar in character to the important habitats
that would be impacted by the road. The exchanged lands are
mostly peripheral to the area that would be impacted, and there
are relatively few threats to those lands. Addition of these
lands would not mitigate the long-term impacts of the road.
When Congress redesignated what had been the Izembek
National Wildlife Range from back in 1960, redesignated it as a
refuge, it did so for the purpose of the conservation of fish
and wildlife populations and habitats, including waterfowl,
shore birds, other migratory birds and brown bears. This was in
the Alaska Lands Act of 1980.
Congress also designated the area under question here as
wilderness and I'd like to quote from the House Report, House
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, 96th Congress. ``The
Izembek Wilderness possesses outstanding scenery, key
populations of brown bear, caribou and other wilderness-related
wildlife and critical watersheds to Izembek Lagoon. About 68
percent of the total lands in Izembek Lagoon are covered with
the largest eel grass beds in the world. These beds are
utilized by millions of waterfowl for migration for wintering
purposes. A wilderness designation will protect this critically
important habitat by restricting access to the lagoon.''
Now, I'm a biologist, educated at the University of Alaska,
worked on birds all over the State, and I'm here to tell you
that the center of Izembek Refuge, the biological heart, is the
combination of Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons and the narrow
isthmus that separates them as an integral part of that system.
From the standpoint of migratory birds, this combined
complex is essentially of global significance. I won't
enumerate all the birds that use the area. Among them are the
entire Pacific population of Brant, including birds from
Canada, Russia, and Alaska. Many of those birds, Mr. Chairman,
many of those Brant end up down on the coast of Oregon in
migration where waterfowl hunters are able to take advantage of
them along the Pacific Coast.
Until last year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
consistently found that a road across the narrow isthmus
between the Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons would be incompatible
with the purposes of the refuge and that a road would cause
significant long-term harm to important values and resources.
Problems with roads are well documented. I won't walk
through the details of the testimony here. I will note that the
legislation requires the cable barrier on each side of the
road. I think that's a positive thing, but it's the road itself
and the access and the use that comes with it that is the
issue.
Also note that the Army Corps of Engineers, in analyzing
the various alternatives that followed passage of the King Cove
Health and Safety Act, indicated that the road alternative
would have the greatest impact on subsistence resources and
it's no accident that 56 Native villages in the Yukon-Kuskokwim
Delta under the banner of the Association of Village Council
Presidents has also consistently opposed completion of this
road, in part because it's the Brants that use Izembek in their
area that are dependent. So they have a vested interest in
that.
I'll just conclude by saying that Audubon appreciates the
State of Alaska's and the King Cove Corporation's proposals to
add lands to the refuge. I know in the case of King Cove, this
is a heartfelt decision. I've seen the area. I've visited with
Della Trumble. I know it's a big decision. In the end, though,
we don't believe that those lands compensate for what we think
would be long-term impact of the road.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Senner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stanley Senner, Executive Director, Audubon
Alaska, Anchorage, AK, on S. 1680
My name is Stanley Senner, and I am Executive Director and Vice
President of Audubon Alaska, which is the National Audubon Society's
Alaska State Office. Thank you for the invitation to address the
Members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests today, 15 April 2008, in
regard to S. 1680, the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula Refuge and
Wilderness Enhancement Act.
I offer this testimony on behalf of Audubon, an organization with
more than 500,000 members and supporters across the country. Audubon's
mission is the conservation of natural ecosystems, emphasizing birds
and other wildlife, and their habitats, for the benefit of present and
future generations. Audubon established an office in Alaska in 1977,
and we have about 2,100 members in the state.
By way of personal background, I first moved to Alaska in 1974 and
have an M.S. degree in biology from the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
I have studied birds and their habitats throughout the state, and I
have spent much of the last 33 years engaged in wildlife and natural
resources management and policy issues in Alaska. My career includes
more than 7 years of service to the State of Alaska, under three
governors, in the restoration and science programs following the Exxon
Valdez oil spill, and three years in Washington, DC, on the Minority
(Republication) Professional Staff) of what used to be the House of
Representatives Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. In the late
1970s I was deeply engaged in developing what became the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980.
My home and office are in Anchorage, but I am fortunate to have
visited the communities of Cold Bay and King Cove. I have driven the
road from the King Cove side as far as it is possible to do so, walked
in the Izembek Wilderness, and flown over the proposed exchange lands
and road alignment.
overview
Audubon is opposed to the land exchange proposed in S. 1680 for the
purpose of building a road between the communities of King Cove and
Cold Bay. Going back a decade, Audubon is on record as recognizing the
wishes of the people of King Cove with respect to transportation, and
we have supported approaches that do not require a road through the
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness. Specifically, Audubon
has supported improving the transportation link between King Cove and
Cold Bay with the combination of a road to Lenard Harbor and a marine
link (preferably a ferry) to Cold Bay. We continue to believe this is
the best option and regret that much time and energy and millions of
public dollars were spent on a longer road and hovercraft, which King
Cove and the Aleutian East Borough have now concluded are insufficient.
Audubon finds that the proposed road is incompatible with the
purposes for which the Izembek refuge was established. This road would
fragment and degrade essential wildlife habitats in the heart of the
Izembek refuge, risking globally significant populations of migratory
birds, and it would violate Congressionally-designated Wilderness,
which deserves great respect. Further, the lands proposed for addition
to the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula refuges are generally not similar
in character and are not equal in value to the important habitats that
would be impacted by the road, the lands are peripheral to the area
that would be traversed by the road, and there are no threats to these
lands. Addition of these lands would not mitigate the long-term impacts
of the road. Hence, there is no net benefit to, nor enhancement of, the
Izembek refuge, notwithstanding the acreage proposed for addition to
the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula refuges.
importance of izembek refuge
In 1980, as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act, Congress redesignated the existing Izembek National Wildlife Range
(established in 1960) as the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and
designated about 300,000 of 417,533 acres in the refuge as
Wilderness\1\. The purposes for which the refuge was established
include conservation of fish and wildlife populations and habitats,
including waterfowl, shorebirds and other migratory birds and brown
bears.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not incidentally, proposed Wilderness at what was then the
Izembek National Wildlife Range was endorsed by Alaska Governor Keith
Miller as early as 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has provided for one of the highest possible levels of
protection for the portion of the Izembek refuge under consideration
today: Wilderness designation within a federally-protected national
wildlife refuge. This level of protection is well deserved, and the
following excerpt from House Report No. 96-97, Part II (p. 136), in
1979 makes clear why:
The Izembek Wilderness possesses outstanding scenery, key
populations of brown bear, caribou and other wilderness-related
wildlife, and critical watersheds to Izembek Lagoon. About 68
percent of the total lands in Izembek Lagoon are covered with
the largest eelgrass beds in the world. These beds are utilized
by millions of waterfowl for migration and wintering purposes.
A wilderness designation will protect this critically important
habitat by restricting access to the Lagoon.
At the center of Izembek refuge are two lagoons--Izembek and
Kinzarof--separated by a narrow (< 3-mile wide) isthmus. In
combination, the lagoons, their immediate watersheds, and the isthmus--
the Izembek-Kinzarof lagoons complex--make up the ecological heart of
the refuge. From the standpoint of migratory birds, especially, this
relatively small area is unquestionably of global significance and has
been repeatedly recognized as such. For example, in 1986, President
Reagan named Izembek as the first Wetland of International Importance
in the United States under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. In 1991,
Izembek was named a ``sister refuge'' with Russia's Kronotskiy State
Biosphere Reserve under the U.S.--Russian Governmental Agreement on
Cooperation in Environmental Protection. And in 2001, BirdLife
International, in cooperation with the National Audubon Society,
recognized Izembek as an Important Bird Area of global significance.
Izembek refuge is best known for its world-class waterfowl and
shorebird populations and habitats. The lagoons complex provides
wintering, breeding, molting, refueling, staging or resting grounds
for:
the entire Pacific population of Brant (138,000), including
birds from Canada, Russia and Alaska;
the world population of Emperor geese (70,000);
up to 70 percent of the world population of Steller's eiders
(100,000), including birds from Russia and Alaska. The Alaska
breeding population is listed as threatened under the
Endangered Species Act;
many species of other shorebirds, including Pacific Golden-
Plovers, Rock Sandpipers, Dunlins; and
a resident (mostly nonmigratory) population of Tundra Swans.
Many of the avian species using Izembek--including the Brant and
Pacific Golden-Plover--are recognized on Audubon's Alaska WatchList of
declining and vulnerable bird populations.
Directly or indirectly, the lagoons complex is important for so
many bird species and other fish and wildlife due to the presence of
the world's largest eelgrass beds, which cover about half of each of
the lagoons. Brant, Emperor Geese and other waterfowl graze on the
eelgrass, and shorebirds prey on the invertebrates associated with the
eelgrass. Eelgrass provides food and cover for commercially important
fish and shellfish. The enormous productivity of the eelgrass beds in
Izembek Lagoon and other lagoons on the north side of the Alaska
Peninsula is a key element in driving the productivity of the larger
Bering Sea ecosystem.
The importance of the combination of Izembek and Kinzarof lagoons
and the adjacent watersheds cannot be understated. Migrating and
wintering Brant fly back and forth between the lagoons to forage;
migrating and wintering Emperor Geese use Kinzarof Lagoon, while often
foraging in the adjacent upland tundra for crowberries; and wintering
and molting Steller's Eiders use Kinzarof Lagoon. When Izembek Lagoon
freezes, Kinzarof Lagoon becomes particularly important for the
survival of wintering bird populations. Kinzarof and Izembek lagoons
are also used by marine mammals. Especially noteworthy is the fact that
large numbers of threatened northern sea otters and also harbor seals
can be found near the entrance to Kinzarof Lagoon, while threatened
Steller's sea lions use the barrier islands on the outside of Izembek
Lagoon.
The narrow ``upland'' isthmus between Izembek and Kinzarof lagoons
is a crucial travel corridor--the only path between the west and east
sides of the refuge--for such wide-ranging species as brown bears and
caribou. The Alaska Peninsula Caribou Herd, a population that has
declined from about 10,000 to fewer than 350 animals in the last 10 or
so years, uses the isthmus as its primary migration route (to and from
calving grounds) and wintering area.
Some of the highest densities of brown bears on the lower Alaska
Peninsula are found in the Joshua Green River Valley, an area within
three miles of the isthmus and proposed road corridor. Low levels of
human disturbance have helped maintain the high habitat value of this
area for brown bears. Bears produced in the Joshua Green watershed
frequently roam the isthmus in their search for food.
Numerous small streams along the north shore of Kinzarof Lagoon
provide access routes to upland lakes for spawning sockeye salmon.
Resident Tundra Swans nest in small wetlands and molt on the larger
lakes on and near the isthmus.
harmful impacts of a road
From the time that the King Cove road project was identified in the
Bristol Bay Area Plan in 1985 until this past year, 2007, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (``Service'') has consistently found that a road
across the narrow isthmus between Izembek and Kinzarof lagoons would be
incompatible with the purposes for which the Izembek refuge had been
established and that a road would cause significant, long-term damage
to important fish, wildlife, habitat, and wilderness values of the
refuge. For example, in an August 1997 King Cove Road Briefing Report,
the Service found the ``road alternative contrary to the purposes of
the refuge'' and anticipated ``unacceptable environmental impacts if a
road is constructed on refuge lands through the wilderness area.'' The
Service supported further study and consideration of other
alternatives, such as a marine link, which would provide increased
travel safety, economic growth and fewer ecological impacts.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the King Cove Access
Project, prepared in 2003 by the Army Corps of Engineers, in
cooperation with the Service and funded by the Aleutian East Borough,
examined the potential threats of the proposed road. The EIS found the
all-road alternative to be the most damaging of all the alternatives
evaluated. This conclusion was based in part on the largest footprint
(287.0 acres) among the alternatives. The report documented the
potential scope of the construction, noting the need for 36.7 acres of
placement of fill material in waters of the U.S., including some
wetlands below the high tide line, and 254 stream and drainage
crossings requiring 8 bridges and 19 culverts across fish bearing
streams. The report cited direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on
the lands and on wildlife.
The EIS also found that if the road between King Cove and Cold Bay
was completed, it would be open for travel by all residents, placing no
restrictions on the numbers or types of vehicles. Estimates of traffic
rates on the road are unavailable, but vehicular traffic is likely to
be variable on a daily and seasonal basis. Increased traffic is
expected beyond that needed for emergency medical access to Cold Bay
airport, including possible commercial use for transporting seafood to
the Cold Bay airport. Increased traffic and transit by large and noisy
vehicles would exacerbate impacts on birds and mammals using these
vital habitats, thereby increasing stress and negative effects.
Increased traffic also means increased dust, erosion and sedimentation,
and pollution.
Many scientific studies have implicated roads as having negative
effects on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (e.g., Trombulak and
Frissell 1999, US Forest Service 2001). According to the US Forest
Service (2001):
Undesirable consequences [of roads] include adverse effects
on hydrology and geomorphic features (such as debris slides and
sedimentation), habitat fragmentation, predation, road kill,
invasion by exotic species, dispersal of pathogens, degraded
water quality and chemical contamination, degraded aquatic
habitat, use conflicts, destructive human actions (for example,
trash dumping, illegal hunting, fires), lost solitude,
depressed local economies, loss of soil productivity, and
decline in biodiversity.
Because roads have potential for introducing varied impacts to both
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, roadless areas provide a
significant foundation for developing comprehensive regional
conservation strategies (Strittholt and Dellasala 2001).
Although Section 4(c)(2)(A) of S. 1680 requires a cable barrier on
each side of the road to prevent off-road motorized access, studies
have shown that the mere presence of a road affects the behavior of
wilderness-associated species, particularly brown bears and wolves.
Roads generally result in harmful impacts to large carnivores (Noss
et al. 1996, Trombulak and Frissell 1999). The construction of roads in
what had been roadless brown bear habitat has been demonstrated by many
investigators to have significant adverse impacts on bear populations
by increasing human access, which results in displacement of bears or
the direct mortality of bears through legal hunting, defense-of-life-
or-property (DLP) kills, illegal killing, and road kills (McLellan and
Shackleton 1989, McLellan 1990, Mattson 1990, Schoen et. al. 1994, Mace
et al. 1996). Titus and Beier (1991) demonstrated the strong
relationship of road construction to increased bear mortality on
northeastern Chichagof Island. Suring and Del Frate (2002) demonstrated
an increasing probability of brown bears killed in DLP with increasing
road density on the Kenai Peninsula.
At Izembek, this situation is compounded by the fact that the
isthmus is narrow, making it difficult for wildlife to avoid the road.
Over time, use of the road would exacerbate the initial, adverse
impacts of the road. Further, as we have seen elsewhere in Alaska,
today's restrictions may be subsequently lifted. I well remember when
the Dalton Highway, which runs north from the Fairbanks area to the
Prudhoe Bay oilfields, was closed to public access. Today, you can
drive a Winnebago to the Arctic Ocean. In 2006, the Alaska State
Legislature considered lifting the ban on off-road vehicles (``ORV'')
traffic off the Dalton Highway, and a picture of sport hunters with
their pick-up truck stuck up to its axle in wet tundra was widely
publicized. Problems with off-road access and increased hunting
pressure, both legal and illegal, would be exacerbated by the Izembek
refuge's lack of resources and staff, especially for law enforcement.
The EIS also noted that the all-road alternative has the greatest
potential of any alternative to adversely affect subsistence harvest
due to its potential to create competition between residents of Cold
Bay and King Cove. This impact on subsistence use due to enhanced
access would be negative and potentially significant, and the local
caribou herd, in particular, cannot withstand additional pressure.
Concern about impacts on subsistence harvests extends beyond the
Izembek area to the Yukon-Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta, where many Alaska
Native residents are dependent on Brant as a key subsistence resource.
It is for this reason that the Association of Village Council
Presidents (AVCP), the recognized tribal organization and non-profit
Alaska Native Regional Corporation for 56 member Native villages in
western Alaska, has consistently opposed the King Cove Road. In 1998,
the AVCP passed a resolution opposing the road, and this opposition was
reaffirmed in 2007 and again in 2008. It may be relevant to note that
many residents of the Y-K Delta live in communities with fewer and less
reliable transportation and medical-care options than are found in King
Cove.
congress previously addressed this issue
Congress determined that a road through the Izembek Wilderness is
not in the public's best interest when, in 1997, it passed the King
Cove Health and Safety Act. With this legislation, Congress addressed
King Cove residents' health and safety concerns by providing $37.5
million from the American taxpayer to upgrade King Cove's medical
facilities, improve the airstrip in King Cove, and provide for a
transportation link between King Cove and the Cold Bay Airport,
including a single lane, unpaved road from King Cove to a marine
facility.
Congress reiterated its intention not to permit a road through
Izembek's designated Wilderness in the King Cove Health and Safety Act,
Section 353(d):
In no instance may any part of such road, dock, marine
facilities or equipment enter or pass over any land within
congressionally-designated wilderness in the Izembek Wildlife
refuge . . .
In addition, Congress required that all actions undertaken pursuant
to this section must be in accordance with all other applicable laws.
After passage of the King Cove Health and Safety Act, and prior to
the Corps of Engineers issuance of a Record of Decision for the EIS,
Congress adopted an appropriations bill with a rider that directed
construction of a 17.6-mile road from the King Cove air strip to a
hovercraft terminal. Construction for this road began in March 2004.
More than $35 million dollars have been spent for this road, which
remains unfinished. Construction costs continued to escalate as crews
confronted numerous obstacles, including unstable volcanic soils in the
area. Avoiding the unstable soils has meant rerouting the road onto the
shores of Cold Bay, where winter ice scouring and spray will increase
maintenance costs and safety problems. All of that effort and
additional cost remain puzzling to observers since it would require
moving the existing hovercraft terminus in Lenard Harbor, which is only
seven miles from King Cove, to a point 10 miles farther away and
require longer transits across steep, windy mountainous terrain where
winter travel conditions would be made even more treacherous.
Although any marine vessel is costly to maintain and operate, and
won't be safe to operate under all conditions, the same may be said of
a road, especially in the harsh environment surrounding Cold Bay. In
fact, in the community of Cold Bay, it is not unusual for roads--
including the main road to the airport--to be closed because of an
inability to keep the road plowed during snow/wind storms. Audubon has
yet to see a current, rigorous analysis of the construction and
operation-and-maintenance costs of the road. Nor have we seen an
analysis of what can be expected in terms of road closures due to
weather or what can be expected in the way of the inevitable accidents,
injuries, and fatalities that will occur on the road. These issues
should be considered fully prior to any further action on
transportation alternatives.
lands offered for exchange
Audubon appreciates that the State of Alaska and King Cove
Corporation are proposing to exchange lands that have value as
wilderness and wildlife habitat. Especially in the case of the
Corporation, which has been a good steward of its lands, I know this
was a very difficult decision.
The exchange lands proposed in S. 1680, however, would not provide
habitat comparable to or compensate for the loss or degradation of the
Izembek-Kinzarof lagoons complex. Fundamentally, this is not an issue
that can resolved on the basis of acreage: no amount of exchange lands
can compensate for the unacceptable and irreversible impacts of a road
on globally significant and unique wildlife habitats, which are the
very heart of Izembek refuge.
State Townships.--The two townships offered by the State
(approximately 43,000 acres) do not include comparable wetlands
habitat. The southernmost State township is primarily uplands, and is
adjacent to some bear denning habitat, but has virtually no value for
waterfowl. The more northern township has some wetlands and some
caribou and brown bear habitat, but, except for Tundra Swans, is of low
or very low value for the waterfowl species of concern in the lagoons
complex. Although the State townships have wilderness qualities, as a
practical matter, there is little or no development threat and little
in the way of compensatory value. Neither of the State townships is
located in the Izembek or Kinzarof lagoon watersheds.
King Cove Corporation lands.--Corporation-owned lands offered along
the eastern shore of Cold Bay (relinquished ANILCA selections,
approximately 5,430 acres) are primarily uplands with low value for
caribou or key waterfowl species.
Lands offered in the Mortensen's Lagoon parcel, approximately
10,800 acres, include upland and freshwater wetland habitats of medium
to high value for caribou, brown bears, salmon, Tundra Swans, Emperor
Geese, and several other waterfowl species, not including Brant and
Steller's Eiders. Although Mortensen's Lagoon has some tidelands, it
does not have the major eelgrass beds present in Izembek and Kinzarof
lagoons, and it is these eelgrass beds that drive the productivity of
the Izembek ecosystem. The Mortensen's Lagoon tract is bisected by a
road, which would remain in use.
The ``bookend'' parcels at the mouth of Kinzarof Lagoon, about
2,500 acres, contain high-value habitats for waterfowl, northern sea
otters and harbor seals, but have no foreseeable development threat.
Further, these parcels are located within the ``zone of influence'' of
road construction, operation and maintenance and, therefore, may
sustain diminished usage and reduction in value over time.
State Refuges.--The exchange proposal includes an offer to make
Kinzarof Lagoon a State game refuge refuge. Although Kinzarof Lagoon is
very valuable from a conservation perspective, historically Alaska has
not made protection and management of State game refuges a priority.
For example, Izembek State Game Refuge was established in 1972 and
there still is no management plan and little in the way of an on-site
State presence. In State ownership, the future of Kinzarof Lagoon would
remain in question and may sustain unavoidable negative impacts from
road construction, operation and maintenance, thereby limiting its
benefit to Izembek refuge.
Senator Wyden. Very good. Ms. Trumble, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DELLA TRUMBLE, AGDAAGUX TRIBE,
KING COVE, AK
Ms. Trumble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and other Members of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
My name is Della Trumble. I am Aleut, born and raised in
King Cove, Alaska. I speak to you on behalf of the Agdaagux
Tribe of King Cove, a federally recognized tribe of Alaska
Natives.
King Cove is an isolated Alaska Native village with roots
that go back over 4,000 years. We Aleuts need a road from our
village to the Cold Bay Airport, the third largest airport in
the State of Alaska.
We are blocked from the construction of the road by a
wilderness area, the Izembek Wilderness, which Congress and
this committee created and that is why we have come to this
committee today to ask for Senate Bill 1680 be passed.
We are supported in our effort by the National Congress of
American Indians, the Nation's largest and most respected
Indian organization, and Alaska Federation of Natives, the
premier statewide Alaska Native organization, and we ask their
resolution be included in the record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, that will be ordered.
Ms. Trumble. Thank you. I speak to you today as an Aleut,
Agdaaux tribal member, a mother, an Alaskan and a citizen of
the United States. I am deeply connected to the lands that you
know as Izembek Refuge through my ancestors who have lived and
subsisted on this wilderness for 4,000 years. My ancestors and
all the ancestors and people as well as future generations
speak to me today in asking for your support of S. 1680.
I remain puzzled and angered by the fact that the
designation of these lands as wilderness are made without a
single public hearing in King Cove. The records state that
meetings were held in King Cove and in Anchorage without any
notification given to King Cove, the community most affected by
the decision to create wilderness.
No one from the Federal Government has ever let us tell our
story and why the wilderness would cut us off from the outside
world with no hope of protecting our life, health, safety and
quality of life.
Gale force winds can dominate and fog can dominate our
weather and one result is that air travel between our community
airstrip located between two mountainous peaks, an all-weather
airport in Cold Bay, is delayed or canceled half the time.
Then it is anguish and for some families in King Cove it
has brought tragedy. Since 1979, 11 people have died flying
between King Cove and Cold Bay in bad weather. Even today,
pregnant women must leave town and temporarily relocate to
Anchorage for 6 to 9 weeks before their due date for fear of
unpredictable weather, premature labor and complications.
Because predictable, dependable, affordable and safe road
transportation access in and out of King Cove is essential for
our future, it continues to be our top priority. We have
advocated for decades now to have this access to the Cold Bay
Airport, an airport that the Agdaaux tribal members help build
during World War II.
We acknowledge and appreciate that Congress tried to help
solve our transportation problems about 10 years ago with the
King Cove Health and Safety Act, a road and marine link.
Unfortunately, the Act has failed to solve our problems. The
attached document describes the financial deficit which the
hovercraft operations have generated and it seems to us that
permanent shutdown is looming and is inevitable.
When this happens, we're right back to the dark ages we
have suffered since Congress first considered this issue 10
years ago and we must have a real affordable solution and that
is the road which is directed to be built by Senate Bill 1680.
We have a 6-minute video which shows an infirm sick Aleut
elder who was forced to climb up some 30 steps on a windblown,
slippery and icy ladder which is the only way on to the
isolated dock in Cold Bay.
Mr. Chair, I guarantee you that you would not want any of
your relatives or friends, whether pregnant, sick or infirm, to
have to suffer this type of a fate. I ask that this video be
given to each committee member and that it be included in the
record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, it's so ordered.
Ms. Trumble. I'm also the president of the King Cove
Corporation, the local Alaska Native Village Corporation which
owns the aboriginal Native land which Congress and this
committee provided to the Alaska Natives in lieu of a
traditional Lower 48 Indian reservation.
On this issue, our tribe and corporation are as one. We
recognize our duty to our people to improve the quality of
their life and the lives of future generations.
We come before you today not with our hat in hand. Senate
Bill 1680 contains a land exchange of an unprecedented
magnitude. More than 61,000 acres of land from the King Cove
Corporation and State of Alaska are being offered to the
Federal Government in exchange for 1,800 acres, of which 206
acres are for a road corridor through a very small portion of
the Izembek Refuge. Of those 61,000 acres, more than 45,000
acres would become wilderness.
Mr. Chairman, we believe this is unprecedented in the
history of the Federal-tribal relations. We know of no instance
in which a tribe traded back so much of its reservation to get
access to an airport or similar need for its tribe's health and
safety and quality of life which most Americans take for
granted.
We must have this road for our people to have a quality of
life that all Americans expect, to protect the life, health and
safety of the indigenous Aleuts and the people of King Cove.
Thank you for your time and members of the committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Trumble follows:]
Prepared Statement of Della Trumble, Agdaagux Tribe, King Cove, AK, on
S. 1680
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, and other members
of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
My name is Della Trumble. I am an Aleut born and raised in King
Cove, Alaska. I speak to you on behalf of the Agdaagux Tribe of King
Cove, a federally recognized tribe of Alaska Natives. King Cove is an
isolated Alaska Native village with roots that go back over 4000 years
in this area.
We Aleuts need a road from our village to the Cold Bay airport, the
3rd largest airport in the State of Alaska. We are blocked from the
construction of the road by a wilderness area, the Izembek Wilderness
which Congress and this Committee created. That is why we have come to
this Committee today to ask that S. 1680 be passed.
We are supported in our effort by the National Congress of American
Indians, the nation's largest and most respected Indian organization
and the Alaska Federation of Natives, the premier statewide Alaska
Native organization. I ask that their resolutions* of support of our
bill be included in the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All additional documents have been retained in subcommittee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am accompanied by another leader of my people, Stanley Mack an
Aleut who was also born and raised in King Cove. Stanley is the Mayor
of the Aleutians East Borough, our local government.
I speak to you today as an Aleut, Agdaagux tribal member, a mother,
an Alaskan and a citizen of the United States. I am deeply connected to
the land that you know as the Izembek Refuge through my ancestors, who
have lived and subsisted on this wilderness for 4,000 years. My
ancestors and all the ancestors of my people as well as future
generations speak through me today in asking for your support of
S.1680.
As an Aleut, and a U.S. citizen, I remain puzzled and angered by
the fact that the designation of these lands as wilderness were made
without a single public hearing in King Cove. The records state that
meetings were held in Cold Bay and Anchorage, without any notification
given to King Cove--the community most affected by the decision to
create wilderness.
No one from the federal government ever let us tell our story and
why the wilderness would cut us off from the outside world with no hope
of protecting our life, health, safety and quality of life. That is why
we continue to fight for a just and fair solution to this problem. The
passage of S.1680 will provide that solution.
I would be proud to show you the beautiful community that is King
Cove, nestled between sea and volcanic mountains. Gale force winds and
fog can dominate our weather. One result is that air travel between our
community airstrip, located between two mountain peaks, and the all-
weather airport in Cold Bay, is delayed or canceled about half of the
time.
Then it is anguish, and for some families in King Cove, it has
brought tragedy. Since 1979, eleven people have died flying between
King Cove and Cold Bay in bad weather. Even today, pregnant women must
leave town and temporarily relocate to Anchorage for 6-9 weeks before
their due date for fear of unpredictable weather, premature labor and
complications. We think about this all the time because in a town as
small as King Cove, we know who is facing this situation. In fact, my
niece was born at sea on the galley table of a fishing vessel. Her
mother's premature labor forced her to endure a dangerous 3-hour ocean
voyage because of high winds and blizzard conditions.
Because predicable, dependable, affordable and safe road
transportation access in and out of King Cove is essential for our
sustainable future, it continues to be our most important priority. We
have advocated for decades now to have this access to the Cold Bay
airport--an airport that King Cove residents helped to build in World
War II.
We acknowledge and appreciate that Congress tried to solve our
transportation problem about ten years ago with the King Cove Health
and Safety Act, requiring us to have a road and marine link.
Unfortunately, the Act has failed to solve our problem.
The attached document describes the financial deficit which the
hovercraft operations have generated--$832,000 in that short time
alone. This is a real cash deficit without any accounting for
depreciation or other ``paper'' losses. We are a thinly populated area:
the Borough as about 2700 residents and King Cove only 800 of those
2700. It seems to us that permanent shutdown is looming and inevitable.
When that happens, we are right back in the dark ages we have
suffered since before Congress first considered this issue 10 years
ago. We must have a real, affordable solution--that is the road which
is directed to be built by S. 1680.
What does that mean? It means that we have to endure cancellations
and delays of scheduled aircraft constantly--often as much as 50% of
the time. It means that in medical emergencies, King Cove residents,
Aleuts and others, have to risk their lives to try to help someone get
out of King Cove to Cold Bay so they won't suffer and possibly die.
We have a 6 minute video which shows what this means. It shows an
infirm, sick Aleut elder who was forced to climb up some 30 steps on a
windblown, slippery and icy ladder which is the only way on to the
isolated dock also located in an open windy, vulnerable location just
offshore from Cold Bay. Mr. Chairman, I guarantee you that you would
not want any of your relatives or friends, whether pregnant, sick, or
just infirm or elderly to have to suffer this fate.
We have provided a copy of this video which shows this for each
committee member. I ask that this video be given to each committee
member and that it be included in the record of this hearing.
I am also President of the King Cove Corporation, the local Alaska
Native village corporation which owns the aboriginal Native land which
Congress and this committee provided to Alaska natives in lieu of a
traditional lower 48 Indian reservation.
On this issue, our tribe and corporation are as one. We recognize
our duty to our people to improve the quality of their lives and the
lives of future generations in ways that are direct, quantifiable and
which reflect our deep and abiding connection to the land. That is the
purpose of S. 1680.
We come before you today not with our ``hat in hand.'' S. 1680
contains a land exchange of an unprecedented magnitude. More than
61,000 acres of land from the King Cove Corporation and State of Alaska
are being offered to the federal government in exchange for 1,800
acres, of which 206 acres are for a road corridor through a very small
portion of the Izembek Refuge. Approximately 97 of these 206 acres
would be in the wilderness section of the refuge.
Of these 61,000 acres being offered to the federal government, more
than 45,000 acres would become wilderness under the exchange. Almost
13,300 acres of that land is King Cove native land which means we are
trading back 17% of our heritage granted to us by Congress in
settlement of our aboriginal rights in order to get our native,
indigenous people what just about every other American takes completely
for granted, the ability to drive to an airport when necessary for
health, safety, and quality of life. We are also relinquishing a 5340
acre selection under ANCSA which means about 20% of our total selection
is affected by this trade.
Mr. Chairman, we believe this is unprecedented in the history of
federal-tribal relations. We know of no instance in which a tribe
traded back so much of its reservation to get access to an airport or
similar need for their tribe's health, safety, and quality of life
which most Americans take for granted.
This is indeed a heavy price to be paid for enhancing the lives of
our people. But we are willing to do this because it is our scared duty
to our ancestors and our future generations. WE MUST DO EVERYTHING WE
CAN TO SECURE A SAFE AND GOOD LIFE FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
This Committee will probably hear today that this land to be
exchanged is not threatened and therefore not necessary to add to the
Refuge and Wilderness Systems. That is insulting to us. It is the
Aleuts of King Cove who are threatened. We have been good stewards of
all this land for 4,000 years. Are we to be punished because of our
good stewardship?
Congress rejected that same argument in 1980 when the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed. Most of the
Izembek Refuge, and more than 50 million acres of ``non-threatened''
lands were turned into wilderness in 1980 by this Committee under
ANILCA. Nevertheless, Congress deemed these ``non-threatened'' lands as
necessary for protection in the wilderness system.
We must have this road for our people to have a quality of life
that all Americans expect and to protect the life, health, and safety
of the indigenous Aleuts and all people in King Cove. To ensure that
Congress will act on this request, we, and the State of Alaska have
proposed an unprecedented land exchange, which will benefit all
Americans. Please pass this bill so this road to protect our people can
be built.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairmen and members of the committee.
I'll be happy to take any questions that you have.
Senator Wyden. Well said, and it's evident that a great
deal of work has gone into the Alaska legislation and yet I ask
the question that I always ask when it gets to this point in
the debate and having been through lots of efforts to try to
fashion legislation.
I'm curious whether there are any further talks that are
underway among Alaskans trying to work out a compromise on
1680. Obviously, you know, the topic would be how do you find a
way to meet the needs of the communities which you have
eloquently addressed, Ms. Trumble, while at the same time being
sensitive to the various wildlife, you know, issues have also
been raised today.
Are there any further talks or are people just kind of in
concrete here and this is the way it's going to be and tell me,
if you would, whether there are further talks underway in an
effort to try to find a compromise between Alaskans?
I'll ask you first, Ms. Trumble, and then you can follow it
up, Mr. Senner.
Ms. Trumble. I'm not aware of any talks, that I'm aware of.
I think we fully understand that and believe that this is our
only alternative.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Senner.
Mr. Senner. Similarly, I'm not aware of additional talks.
Senator Wyden. Would you all like to see additional talks
or do you want to just say our way or that's that? I'm a big
believer in further talks as a general effort to try to find a
way to work these things out.
Mr. Senner. If it were possible to have a conversation that
was exploring alternatives to a road, I'd be delighted to have
that talk. If it really is simply yes or no in regard to this
road, then I think that's going to be a barrier.
Senator Wyden. It seems to me the opportunity, and I don't
pretend to be an authority on this, but I've listened to all of
you and I know you're both very sincere that the area for
common ground would be to look at a way to have a road so you
meet the community's needs but to also be sensitive to the
wildlife issues. I'll leave that for you Alaskans for another
discussion.
Just one question for you, Dr. Murray. With respect to the
fire issues and you touched on, you know, Brush Mountain, my
understanding is the local communities are very much aware of
the fire issues and yet they are supporting the proposed
designation of Brush Mountain as a wilderness area, is that
right?
Mr. Murray. That's correct, yes.
Senator Wyden. OK. Congratulations to all of you in
Virginia for your efforts, and we look forward to working
further with you Alaskans as well and we'll wrap up today's
hearing with Senator Murkowski's questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
your inquiry as to whether or not there is room to try to work
out an accommodation. You're absolutely correct. The residents
of King Cove are very passionate about it. They've lived with
it. They've died with it, some have, and it is something that I
think they would like a resolution and I think those who have
concerns about it would also like that there be a resolution
and that we're not in this constant seeming battle.
I will remind the committee, though, that since the last
time the Senate took up this matter back 10 years ago, 1998, at
that time, the exchange was 664 acres of land to be transferred
by King Cove, 580 of those to be added to the wilderness area
as opposed to where we are now which is 61,000 acres versus the
16.
So, in terms of those that feel like they're giving, I
think the people of King Cove feel that they have made quite an
incredible accommodation. Certainly when a Native corporation
agrees to give up 17 percent of their land that they were
provided under ANILCA, that's a huge, huge give, but I would
like to figure out a positive way forward.
I want to acknowledge also that, in addition to Della being
here today and speaking for the people of King Cove, we also
welcome the Mayor and several other members of King Cove that
have kind of put fishing season on hold and put their families'
lives on hold in order to come and present these issues to us.
So, I just wanted to acknowledge them, also.
Della, I mentioned that the give that the people of King
Cove are willing to make in order to get this road. It's
substantial. It's beyond substantial. I don't know. I don't
know if it is clear to others who have not seen what the
community of King Cove lives with, understand exactly what it
means that you are willing to give up so much for a road.
We've got lots of roads back here, but if you could just
perhaps go into a little more detail about what it means to
live out in King Cove, what it means to be without the full
medical facilities, knowing that your medevac is hours away and
days away, depending on the weather, and you've given very good
testimony in your written presentation, but a little bit more
of the day in the life, and I appreciate you giving the
committee members the story behind King Cove by way of video
because I think we'll be able to see then some of the real life
horror stories, the docking of the vessel and trying to get an
injured person up when the waves have frozen on the rails and
you're slipping all over the place.
But could you just provide very quickly for the committee a
little more detail about why you would be willing to give up so
much just for a road?
Ms. Trumble. Thank you, Senator. Yes, this issue, we've
been fighting this for the last 30 years. This King Cove is a
beautiful place. We're surrounded by mountains, 4,000 feet. You
go toward the Cold Bay side and it's flat. You don't have the
issue that the mountains create for us which is the wind. We
get the wind off the--the wind shear off of the mountains.
We can't fly between the two communities because of the
wind and then it's a matter of trying to take the boat and
sometimes that in itself, only if it's with a certain wind can
you get by the dock in Cold Bay. King Cove has a weak water
port. Cold Bay does not and so it's very dangerous to offload
any patient in Cold Bay and there's been a lot of instances
where just trying to haul a patient off in a stretcher with
rope and moving back and forth and up and down and people
getting hurt in just that way and personally from my own
experience, I had a niece born on the galley table of a crab
fishing boat in 70-mile-an-hour winds northwest and freezing
spray.
People are continuously put in dangerous circumstances of
just trying to get into Cold Bay, not only the patients but
including whoever is helping to transport them, and the other
issue is when they're in King Cove long and they're waylaid
longer, that contributes more to their health problems and
usually makes it worse. It's a tough situation to be in. We
love living there, but the people in King Cove really do
deserve a better ability to get between the two communities,
even just more than for medical evacuations.
It's just the safety and ability to know that you can get
back and forth to the communities without being afraid for your
life.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you because you and your
family have lived there for generations. You know the land. You
obviously love the land and care very deeply about it.
There's been some dispute about the environmental values
that are associated with the lands that would be part of this
exchange, that perhaps what King Cove is giving up isn't as
environmentally significant.
Can you comment on that?
Ms. Trumble. We disagree with that. The Aleut people in my
region have lived and subsist off of those lands for thousands
of years, including the whole Izembek Refuge. That's the part
of what we're--that's what we're about.
The lands that the King Cove Corporation are giving up, the
Kinzarof Lagoon, and the Mortonson Lagoon have significant
value to us as Aleuts. We also know from the standpoint of
habitat value, that habitat is there because we hunt and
subsist on those lands, also, and we believe that Fish and
Wildlife would not agree to this exchange had they not believed
that.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple more
questions, but I'm over my time. Did you want to ask some more
here?
Senator Wyden. No, I do not. You may proceed.
Senator Murkowski. I can do that. Great. I appreciate that.
Question for you, Mr. Senner. The Director of Fish and
Wildlife Service believes that the desires of the King Cove
people for a road and the conservation needs of the refuge can
be harmonized. You don't agree with him or do not believe that
they can be, yet your testimony doesn't identify any specific
catastrophic consequences that could follow from construction
of a one-land road on 206 acres in the refuge, yet the death of
a Native elder or a child seeking medical attention, I mean,
these are true catastrophes in my judgment.
I guess as we as a committee try to balance out the
potential risks and the harm, I'm clearly very sympathetic and
understanding that we must ensure that we work to care for our
environment, but when we have to balance, I guess, should we
not err on the side of preserving human life?
I do appreciate your--at least your body language and
willingness that perhaps there are ways that we could work an
arrangement, but I think if I heard you correctly, if the
arrangement involved a road, you would continue to oppose it,
is that correct?
I don't want to be misreading your statement there.
Mr. Senner. No, that is essentially correct, Senator. I do
not see, given the choices for an alignment of a road, I do not
see how that's an option that we could support.
Senator Murkowski. So in your opinion then, there is no
road that could be constructed that would be acceptable?
Mr. Senner. I don't think so.
Senator Murkowski. You have indicated several times, not
only in your testimony but in your written testimony, that
the--you refer to the real--the biological heart of the refuge
and the concern that this road would be built in that
biological heart.
Where the eel grass is located in the Izembek, the other
lagoons on the Bering Sea side of the refuge, I guess we've
always heard that the real biological heart is where these eel
grass beds are. So, are they or aren't they?
Mr. Senner. They're in both. Kinzarof Lagoon is about 50
percent covered by eel grass beds, the same as Izembek Lagoon.
Of course, Izembek is much bigger, so it has more acres of eel
grass.
The birds use them both and in fact stellar siders which
are a threatened species tend to prefer to use Kinzarof Lagoon.
When Izembek Lagoon freezes over which it sometimes does, all
of the wintering birds go to Kinzarof Lagoon and other
locations on the south side of the isthmus.
So, Senator, there really is an integrated system and
biologically you don't want to start separating one from the
other.
Senator Murkowski. I've seen different--I've seen several
maps of where the eel grass is in terms of the predominance of
them and I don't know how old those maps are.
Della, can you help me out with the location?
Ms. Trumble. Thank you. The Kinzarof Lagoon is on the south
side. It's a very small lagoon and that lagoon in itself has
less than 50 percent. The Izembek Lagoon is 11 miles across and
that is technically where the eel grass beds are and that's why
the bulk, a 150,000 birds that go through there every year, the
time they're there, are feeding in that lagoon and that is why
we Aleut people classify the heart of Izembek Lagoon, the
Izembek Lagoon.
Kinzarof Lagoon is very, very small and very small eel
grass beds.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask about the road and I
appreciate the Chairman's time for this. This will be my last
question to you, Mr. Senner, but your concern is you construct
a road and basically it all falls apart after that and yet
we've got about 14 miles, maybe 14 or 15 miles of road that are
already in the wilderness. Many of the roads are used by the
Cold Bay residents. The Fish and Wildlife Service uses them.
The refuge personnel, hunters use them.
So, you know, we're talking about an additional six miles
of road that would be in the eastern part of the isthmus
connecting the existing roads that already cross the isthmus
and run right down to Kinzarof Lagoon and the eel beds that--I
guess my question would be whether the habitat where the
easement would be, is that less important or less significant
to the migratory birds that--as compared to the existing roads?
Your statement would lead one to believe that a road is
new, it's foreign, it is something that hasn't happened, and
yet you fly over and you've been out there, you know that those
roads are in existence out there and you still have an
incredible abundance of wildlife and waterfowl that come
through.
So, if the road is such a detriment, why has it not been a
problem?
Mr. Senner. Senator, first of all, the maintained roadways
in the Izembek Refuge are not within the wilderness areas. The
mileage that is within the wilderness area is not maintained
and it is not driven on by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
other personnel.
Second, one of the big differences is that there's only 80
people in Cold Bay and the traffic on whatever roads there are
is very limited. If you put in a road connection with the
community of 800+ people in some seasons to Cold Bay, you add
the daily traffic, you add possibly fish products moving from
the fish processor in King Cove to Cold Bay and so on, we're
talking about a much higher level of traffic. We're talking
about a maintained roadway.
We think the impacts will be significantly higher and then
last, I would just say the point of the--what we think is a new
road and it would be a new road to connect all the way through
bisects a very narrow isthmus and that is with a maintained
road that will have heavy traffic or heavier traffic and we
think that that's a different order of magnitude in terms of
the concern.
Senator Murkowski. I think we need to keep in mind and
appreciate that in this community of 800 people how many
vehicles are there, Della?
Ms. Trumble. There's 200 vehicles and I think on a daily
average, you wouldn't see more than 10.
Senator Murkowski. What are you paying for gasoline out
there?
Ms. Trumble. $4.30 a gallon.
Senator Murkowski. OK. So people aren't going to be hopping
in their car and just going out for a Sunday drive.
Ms. Trumble. Not too many people can afford it that I am
aware of at all, no.
Senator Murkowski. It is something about that access, that
I think we need to recognize that we're not talking about
building a road the likes of which you would see back here that
connects communities that are connected to other communities
that then lead to something bigger. It is truly a very small
connector road.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. Appreciate the
opportunity to present this information to the committee today
on behalf of the people of King Cove, and I would like to think
that we can work with the committee in further advancing some
positive progress.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and let us
also welcome the political leadership of King Cove as well.
That is a long trek to make for the hearing.
Here's what we're going to do at this point with respect to
the Alaska legislation. I'm going to direct our staff, and they
work very closely in a bipartisan way, to work with all of you
and Senator Murkowski to see what we can do to come up with an
approach that comes close to finding common ground.
My view is that the best natural resources policy is always
the policy that makes sense in terms of communities and makes
sense in terms of the environmental values that we all feel so
strongly about. So that will be the directive to the staff.
Time is short because any efforts to try to address this issue
will have to go into a second package of public lands bills
that we have been working on that Chairman Bingaman and I feel
very strongly about in some other areas that we care the most
about that didn't find its way into the first package.
But we will let the Virginians go with, I know, some issues
that have to be worked out with the Administration, and you
Alaskans, I know, feel passionately about your positions and
we'll tell the staff to follow up working with Senator
Murkowski on your concerns.
With that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Barrasso
s. 570 and h.r. 1101
Joel, in both the Virginia and the West Virginia bills, the forests
had just recently completed revisions of their forest plans. Now you
are being asked to respond to wilderness proposals that go beyond what
the forest plans decided. I wonder how the public who invested their
time and efforts in those plans might feel about Congress legislating
over their hard work.
Question 1. In terms of the Forest Service, does passing bills like
these make it more difficult to engage the public in meaningful forest
planning efforts on these forests or elsewhere?
Answer. Engaging the public meaningfully in forest planning efforts
is always a challenging and rewarding experience. We have attempted to
honor the public's participation in these efforts by presenting to the
committee the recommendations from the most recent Forest Plan. We will
continue to offer the public opportunities to participate in our
planning efforts and expect that they will continue to provide their
comments and insights.
Question 2. Your testimony includes a number of concerns related to
S. 570 and H.R. 1101--the wilderness proposals on the Jefferson
National Forest.
In regard to the Kimberling Creek Addition and your concern about
potential wilderness status. If we designated it as wilderness but gave
the forest 10 years to implement the rehabilitation plan you spoke of,
could you support this proposal?
Answer. The Kimberling Creek addition was recently acquired as
National Forest System (NFS) land. Due to an extensive road network, in
its current condition, the area does not contain the basic natural
characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness. In our testimony,
we recommended that the Committee consider allowing the Secretary to
continue the current management prescription for this area which is
Dispersed Recreation--Unsuitable (for timber production). This
management emphasis provides for a variety of dispersed recreation uses
with minimal vegetation management and would allow use of motorized and
mechanized equipment for needed road and trail rehabilitation work. We
plan to develop rehabilitation plans and implement these plans within
the next 10 years. We recommend that its designation as Wilderness be
reevaluated by Congress after this work is complete.
The Department does not support the designation as ``potential
wilderness'' for the 349 acre portion of the Kimberling Creek area. The
designation ``Potential Wilderness'' is not a designation referenced in
the Wilderness Act of 1964. A subsequent designation of wilderness
following a fixed time period and associated compulsory changes in
conditions can serve to limit the Secretary's discretion in the
allocation of scare resources and other management actions associated
with the administration of the NFS and the National Wilderness
Preservation System.
For the same reasons the Department would not support bill language
in which Kimberling Creek would be designated Wilderness in 10 years.
Question 3. In the case of the Brush Mountain and Brush Mountain
East proposals, how wide of an area does the Forest Service need in
order to keep the power line corridor you expressed concern about
viable? Would a quarter mile buffer on either side of the existing
right-of-way suffice?
Answer. There is a 765-kV electric transmission line that separates
the proposed Brush Mountain wilderness area from the proposed Brush
Mountain East wilderness area. The current maps show a 250-foot offset
from the center of the transmission line to the wilderness boundaries.
That 500-foot corridor keeps the utility corridor (as defined in our
Forest Plan) for the transmission line out of both of the wildernesses,
and this meets our needs.
s. 2109
Upon reviewing the prepared maps of these wilderness proposals I
have some concerns with the status of their roads should these
proposals become designated.
Question 4a. Within the South Fork San Jacinto Proposed Wilderness,
do you think that a wilderness designation would impede the utilization
of the existing roads to fight fires?
Answer. All existing roads have been excluded from or 'cherry-
stemmed' out of the proposed designation so they remain open to
facilitate fire suppression activities.
Question 4b. Could the lack of ability to fight fires be a threat
to areas surrounding this proposed wilderness?
Answer. Our ability to aggressively suppress wildfires to protect
public health and safety is not significantly hampered by the
wilderness designation. Congress has specified that for the protection
of public health and safety any necessary measure to control fire in
wilderness areas may be taken.
Question 4c. What about the roads and the ability to fight fire
within the Cahuilla Proposed Wilderness?
Answer. The same authority to fight fire in the South Fork San
Jacinto Proposed Wilderness would apply within the Cahuilla Proposed
Wilderness. Also see the answer to the previous question.
Question 4d. Would the ability to fight fires be restricted in any
of the other proposed wilderness areas under this bill? And would this
restriction be a threat to surrounding areas?
Answer. The provisions of this bill specific to fire suppression
apply to all areas that would be designated as wilderness under this
bill. Therefore, the authority and ability to fight fire in the South
Fork San Jacinto Proposed Wilderness would apply equally in the other
proposed wilderness areas established under this bill.
Question 5a. Considering the State of California's Renewable
Portfolio Standard which requires that 20% of its electricity needs be
met with renewable energy by 2010:
Are you aware of any utility corridors for renewable electricity
projects near these proposed wilderness areas?
Answer. We are not aware of any utility corridors near these
proposed wilderness areas.
Question 5b. What constraints would be imposed on these corridors
and on renewable energy projects located near these proposed wilderness
areas?
Answer. There are no utility corridors present and no renewable
energy projects located near the proposed wilderness areas.
Question 5c. Would these wilderness designations exacerbate any
difficulties the State might have in meeting its mandate by 2010?
Answer. We defer this question to the State of California.
______
Responses of Della Trumble to Questions From Senator Akaka
s. 1680
Question 1. In your testimony you note that the designation of
these lands as wilderness were made without a single public hearing in
King Cove. Please tell this Subcommittee why you think the Aleuts of
King Cove were not involved in the federal government 's decision over
25 years ago to create the wilderness lands that ultimately prevented
having surface transportation access to the Cold Bay Airport?
Answer. I do not know why King Cove residents were omitted in this
process. However. I do not believe it was by malicious intent.
Communications of any kind between government agency personnel and
local residents 30-40 years ago in rural Alaska were very limited. We
only had one phone in the entire community at that time and summers
were spent salmon fishing every day.
In retrospect, the primary aggravation is that the public record
shows that the federal government sent out over 1,500 notices to
individuals in Alaska, the ``lower'' 48 states, Europe, and Canada, but
not a single letter to anyone in King Cove. Two public hearings were
held, one in Anchorage and one in Cold Bay. At the meeting in Cold Bay,
the record shows that Mike Uttecht an elder, who was from King Cove and
living in Cold Bay at the time, spoke to the issue of a possible road
connection between the two communities.
Elder Aleuts shared with us tha when their hunting/trapping cabins
were burned down is when King Cove residents learned that these Izembek
lands had been turned into wilderness, and that ``man's presence'' on
these lands had to be removed. We believe if King Cove residents had
been engaged in this process at that time our then current and
historical use of these lands would have been acknowledged and a
surface transportation corridor would have been designated between King
Cove and Cold Bay.
Question 2. Please briefly describe what health and safety issues
this lack of surface access has caused your community?
Answer. Over the last four decades, dozens of King Cove residents
have experienced a wide range of medical and health issues because of
our inability to reach the Cold Bay airport for transportation to
Anchorage.
This situation has caused deaths and severe medical complications
when local residents cannot receive timely or safe transportation to
the Cold Bay airport in order to be transported to medical facilities
in Anchorage. When a sick or injured resident has to take a boat in
rough sea conditions in an emergency situation, it is uncomfortable,
and not an easy task off-loading them at the dock in Cold Bay. The dock
in Cold Bay is not readily accessible given its location and sea state
and weather conditions most of the time. In one particular case, an
elder with a heart condition died on the dock in Cold Bay after a long,
treacherous boat ride.
Another example from this past March was when four local pregnant
women were scheduled to travel to Anchorage. One of the women was
having complications. The women were directed to go to the hovercraft
to be transported to Cold Bay. Given the weather conditions, which were
winds at 45 northwest, gusting to 60, with a wind chill below 0, the
hovercraft was not able to travel. Later in the afternoon, the single-
engine commercial carrier made a trip to King Cove in windy conditions,
to get the four women out. Two of the ladies, the one who was having
complications, were simply too afraid to get on the plane. This is very
common--many King Cove residents are afraid to fly between the two
communities.
Question 3. I understand that the land transfer involved in S. 1680
represents about 20 percent of the land that Congress and the federal
government returned to the Aleut people of King Cove to settle
aboriginal claims as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Consermtion Act. As President of the King Cove Native Corporation, what
are your feelings about giving back to thefederal government such a
significant amount ofyour native lands?
Answer. Yes, it is a very high price to pay for the right to have a
safe and dependable means of transportation access to the Cold Bay
airport. My greatest frustration is realizing that if the then-
government process that originally designated the Izembek wilderness
included King Cove representatives, we would have had a transportation
corridor reserved.
Consequently, the King Cove Corporation's Board of Directors
emphatically supports doing whatever it now takes to have this safe and
dependable access to the Cold Bay airport The health, safety and
overall well-being of our shareholders, tribal members, other community
residents, and visitors deserve safe and predictable transportation in
and out of King Cove.
Responses of Della Trumble to Questions From Senator Barrasso
Question 4. How much money was invested in the last decade to pay
for the cost of /lying or boating critically ill or injured people out
of King Cove just to the Cold Bay?
Answer. It is very difficult to estimate these costs. The attitude
in King Cove has always been to do whatever it takes, regardless of
cost, to get family, friends, or visitors to the Cold Bay airport when
needed. The primary consideration is what will the current weather and
sea state conditions allow for in consideration of safe and prudent
transportation options, either by plane or water.
In many instances, whether by boat, plane or hovercraft, these
situations are in conditions that put the crew and medical staff at
risk for their own lives. To us, there is no dollar amount that can be
put on the value of saving lives.
Our most haunting example is from the1980's when a Washington state
crab fisherman had his leg severed. He was going to bleed to death if
we could not get him to Anchorage, via a medivac flight from the Cold
Bay airport. The only nurse in King Cove, along with an assistant, the
injured fisherman, and pilot left the King Cove airstrip in total
blizzard conditions and crashed on the way to the Cold Bay airport. All
four were killed.
Question 5. I know that the federal government stuck your town with
a hovercraft as an alternative to the road Did they provide an annual
stipend for the operation and maintenance of the craft?
Answer. No annual funding for operating and maintaining the
hovercraft was part of the original legislation. Consequently, the over
$1.0 million in annual net operating loss for the hovercraft is not
financially sustainable by our local government that has just 2,500
people in it. Mass transit systems of all modes and locations
throughout the United States require an operating subsidy.
We are not seeking an operating subsidy. Instead, we are firmly
convinced that a road is the only logical and financially sustainable
transportation alternative for our particular need.
Question 6. Do you have an estimate of what it might cost to
upgrade one of the existing roads across the refuge and then extend it
to King Cove in order to make it serviceable for medical evacuation?
Answer. Of the 35 miles of roads that presently exist in the
Izembek Refuge, including its wilderness area, we will require about 7
miles of new construction to connect to this existing road network.
This additional 7 miles of a new, one-lane gravel road is estimated
to cost between $10-$15 million. Upgrades to the existing road links
that would connect to this new road are estimated to be between $5-$8
million. Therefore, a reasonable estimate of between $15-$23 million
will be required to construct the missing link and to upgrade the
existing road links.
Question 7. To your knowledge, has Mr. Senner or his organization
offered the United States 45,000 acres of land to turn into wilderness?
Answer. No! To the best of our knowledge the land exchange proposal
that we have put together, offering a ratio of 30 to 1 is
Congressionally unprecedented.
Question 8. To your knowledge, has Mr. Senner or his organization
offered the citizens of King Cove an alternative to the hovercraft, or
offered to subsidize the operation of the hovercraft as an alternative
to your proposal?
Answer. No! Instead, they continue to tell us that we should be
pleased with the hovercraft and that it is working just fine.
Furthermore, Mr. Senner, his organization, and many other environmental
groups have been unwilling to acknowledge the simple fact that it is
not financially sustainable.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Henri Bisson From Senator Barrasso
s. 1680
I know that the Fish & Wildlife Service has wrestled with the issue
of a road between King Cove and Cold Bay ever since the Izembek
Wilderness was designated in 1980.
Question 1. I wonder how the Department of the Interior and the
Fish and Wildlife Service would feel about the safety of your employees
if your offices were located in King Cove rather than in Cold Bay?
Question 2. If the shoe were on the other foot and the Fish and
Wildlife employees and their families had to live in King Cove, I
wonder if it would have taken nearly 30 years to conclude that a road
across this wilderness is a common sense solution. How do we deny the
people of King Cove this access when it comes to the safety of a
community and those citizens' right to reasonable access to adequate
community medical facilities and emergency transportation to larger
hospitals?
s. 2109
With regard to Section 103 which proposes the designation of some
43,000 acres along the southwestern boundary of Joshua Tree National
Park; you state in your testimony that about a third of this acreage is
under private ownership and that the Park Service has been attempting
to acquire these lands with donated funds on a willing-seller basis.
Question 1. How many acres of this private land have been acquired?
Question 2. Have you met any opposition from landowners upon trying
to purchase these lands?
Question 3. Are there any issues that would create a checkerboard
ownership between the national park, the proposed wilderness area, and
private land?
Question 4. Considering the State of California's Renewable
Portfolio Standard which requires that 20% of its electricity needs be
met with renewable energy by 2010:
Are you aware of any utility corridors for renewable electricity
projects near these proposed wilderness areas?
Question 5. What constraints would be imposed on these corridors
and on renewable energy projects located near these proposed wilderness
areas?
Question 6. Would these wilderness designations exacerbate any
difficulties the State might have in meeting its mandate by 2010?
______
Question for Elena Daly From Senator Barrasso
s. 758 and h.r. 1311
This is the second time Congress has reversed course on the
reverter language included in the Southern Nevada Land Management Act.
Question 1. At what point do you think the requirements of the
Southern Nevada Land Management Act are lost or become meaningless?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Linda Lance, Vice President, Public Policy The
Wilderness Society
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the
opportunity to provide this statement for the written record of the
hearing on S. 570; S. 1680; S. 2109; and S. 2581. The Wilderness
Society has a longstanding interest in wilderness protection and sound
natural resource management of our national forests and public lands.
Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society is a national non-profit
environmental organization with more than 200,000 members that works to
protect America's wilderness through public education, scientific
analysis, and advocacy.
Our goal is to ensure that future generations enjoy the clean air
and water, beauty, wildlife, and opportunities for recreation and
spiritual renewal provided by the nation's pristine forests, rivers,
deserts, and mountains. The protection and preservation of our public
lands and wilderness resources is crucial to ensuring that they survive
for the enjoyment and use of future generations. We thank you for
considering our testimony on these four legislative proposals.
s. 570
The Wilderness Society supports S. 570, the ``Virginia Ridge and
Valley Act,'' which would designate nearly 43,000 acres of national
forests as wilderness or wilderness study areas and nearly 12,000 acres
as scenic areas. The bill was developed after careful consideration by
all interested parties including the Forest Service, other interested
Members of Congress, local governing bodies, representatives of users'
groups such as hikers, horseback riders, and mountain bikers, and,
above all, members of the general public. Two areas that best highlight
the values and unique qualities of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act
are the proposed Brush Mountain and Brush Mountain East Wilderness
areas. Both areas have been endorsed by the Board of Supervisors for
the counties in which they are located. These areas are in the vicinity
of Blacksburg, Virginia and Virginia Tech. The areas include mountains,
valleys, native trout streams and old growth forests. It will be a
popular wilderness area for local residents, students and visitors to
the area and is worthy of wilderness designation.
s. 1680
The Wilderness Society opposes this legislation and the proposal to
build an unnecessary and ecologically damaging road through the heart
of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. One of the world's most
critical resting places for migrating birds is found in the cold-water
lagoons and internationally significant wetlands of Izembek Refuge on
the Alaskan Peninsula. The proposed road is not needed. The bill claims
the road is necessary to address the transportation, health, and safety
needs of King Cove. Congress addressed those needs in 1998, when it
passed the King Cove Health and Safety Act. That legislation provided
$37.5 million to upgrade King Cove's medical facilities, purchase a
hovercraft to provide regular ferry and emergency medical service
between King Cove and Cold Bay, construct new marine terminals, and
build an unpaved road between the town of King Cove and the connecting
marine terminal. The hovercraft is working. Hovercraft service
commenced full-time operation on August 7, 2007 and has met every
medical evacuation need of the King Cove community since it began its
first training runs in February 2007.
s. 2581
We support ``The Wild Monongahela Act,'' which will protect some of
West Virginia's most spectacular wild areas--representing the heart and
soul of our ``Wild and Wonderful'' state. This bipartisan legislation
designates several new wilderness areas and expands three nationally
renowned existing areas, totaling approximately 47,000 acres within the
Monongahela National Forest. The act is the first piece of legislation
to protect Wilderness in the state in nearly 25 years. It is broadly
supported by a wide array of organizations representing the faith,
conservation, sporting and business communities as well as many state
and local elected officials and municipalities across West Virginia.
While we support S. 2581 and encourage the Senate to pass the measure,
we hope that the Senate will consider amending the legislation to
include special places left out of the original legislation, including:
Seneca Creek (24,143 acres), East Fork of the Greenbrier (9,705 acres)
and Roaring Plains North and East (6,006 acres). These areas have no
lasting protection currently and face pressure from industrial energy
development, logging and road building if they are not protected.
Wilderness designation is the best way to ensure they stay just like
they are, wild and wonderful.
s. 2109
The Wilderness Society strongly supports S. 2109, the ``California
Desert and Mountain Heritage Act.'' This bill, sponsored by Senator
Barbara Boxer, would protect some of the last wild places in Riverside
County, the fastest growing county in California. The legislation would
create four new wilderness areas, expand six existing wilderness areas
including Joshua Tree National Park Wilderness, designate four wild and
scenic rivers and add important areas to the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto
Mountains National Monument. Designating these areas will protect
important wildlife and plants, preserve clean water and clean air for
communities, enhance the county's economy, enable outdoor recreation,
and safeguard important historical and Native American cultural sites.
The ``California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act'' is broadly
supported by Democrats and Republicans, Chambers of Commerce and
businesses, local elected officials and municipalities. The bill seeks
to address local fire concerns with fire management provisions. It is
our assessment that these local concerns could be effectively addressed
with fire management provisions that mirror language used in other
California wilderness statutes such as the recently enacted Northern
California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, The Wilderness
Society appreciates the opportunity to comment on these four
legislative proposals and provide this testimony for the record of this
hearing.
______
The Wildlife Society,
Bethesda, MD, April 15, 2008.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, 364 Dirksen Office Bldg, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Wyden: This afternoon the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee will hear testimony on S. 1680, legislation that
would authorize a land exchange and road corridor through the Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and its Congressionally-designated
Wilderness. The Wildlife Society opposes the road and asks that this
letter be entered into the official record of the subcommittee's 15
April hearing on S. 1680.
The Wildlife Society was founded in 1937 and is a non-profit
scientific and educational association of over 8,000 professional
wildlife biologists and managers, dedicated to excellence in wildlife
stewardship through science and education.
The Wildlife Society is concerned about the effects of this
proposed road on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Construction of a road
through the refuge would threaten wildlife and habitat. Furthermore,
the land exchange proposed in the bill fails to offer comparable
protection or habitat for the important wildlife species at Izembek
NWR.
Izembek NWR provides habitat for a large array of wildlife.
Federally threatened Steller's Eiders use the refuge, as do other
migratory birds including Emperor Goose and Dunlin, which are listed as
declining and vulnerable in Alaska (Pacific Flyway Management Plan
2006, U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan 2001). Ninety-eight percent of
the world's Black Brant population use this refuge during migration.
Both the Emperor Goose and Pacific Brant are well below population
goals identified in Pacific Flyway Management Plans for those species.
In 1986, Izembek NWR and Izembek Lagoon became one of the first sites
in the United States to be recognized as a Wetland of International
Importance, one of only 22 such sites in the United States. Izembek
Lagoon is also identified as vital wading bird habitat within the
Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve and East Asian-Australasian
Shorebird Reserve networks. Izembek Lagoon also has one of the largest
eelgrass beds in the world. Kinzarof Lagoon supports the largest beds
of eelgrass on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula and is vital
winter habitat for brant and Steller's Eider when Bering Sea estuaries
are ice covered. These eelgrass beds provides quality habitat for
crabs, salmon, various juvenile fish, brown bears, sea otters, tens of
thousands of shorebirds, and half a million waterfowl.
The proposed road would pass through an isthmus between Izembek and
Kinzarof lagoons, a location representing a major wildlife migration
corridor. The Southern Alaska Peninsula caribou herd, as well as brown
bears and wolves regularly use this corridor and it is core wintering
habitat for the caribou. The road would also cut through nesting and
molting habitat for a small, resident population of Tundra Swans, which
are sensitive to human disturbance. Finally, this isthmus is located
between the two rich ecosystems of Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons. There
is frequent traffic across the isthmus as waterfowl, brown bears, and
other wildlife travel between the two lagoons.
According to the Fish and Wildlife Service's 1985 Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Izembek NWR, the proposed road could cause long-
term, negative effects to refuge resources. Potential impacts include
disruption of migratory waterfowl populations during molting, spring
and fall staging and winter and decreased productivity of caribou,
Tundra Swans, and furbearers. Construction of a road may also increase
the illegal use of ATVs on the refuge. Although only a partial road has
been constructed on the east side of Cold Bay, illegal ATV use is
already beginning to degrade wildlife habitat in wilderness areas to
the east and northeast of Kinzarof Lagoon.
The Wildlife Society urges you to vote against this bill, in light
of the potential for serious adverse effects it would have on our
nation's wildlife. Thank you for considering the views of wildlife
professionals.
Sincerely,
Michael Hutchins, Ph.D.,
Executive Director/CEO.
______
West Virginia Wilderness Coalition,
Morgantown, WV, April 14, 2008.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Dear Chairman Wyden, Please accept the attached Statement on behalf
of several of the organizations representing the broad and diverse
support of West Virginians across the State for S. 2581, the Wild
Monongahela Act. This statement expresses the support and gratitude for
our Senators Byrd and Rockefeller's sponsorship of this legislation and
articulates our desire to see it improved with the addition of some key
areas that have been omitted.
West Virginian's support protecting these areas for many reasons
but primarily because doing so will help to ensure West Virginia's
great way-of-life, and our cultural and natural heritage. Representing
a cross-section of the support for wilderness, it includes; the West
Virginia Council of Churches, comprised of 14 denominations approaching
600,000 West Virginians; local lawmakers including Mayor John
Manchester and the Lewisburg City Council; sportsmen's groups such as
the Mountaineer Chapter of Trout Unlimited; conservation and civic
organizations such as the League of Women Voters; Christians for the
Mountains, as well as thousands of individuals across the state who
have written letters and made phone calls in support.
S. 2581 will protect some of West Virginia's most spectacular wild
areas--representing the heart and soul of our ``Wild and Wonderful''
state. Many of these areas are vitally important to the people of West
Virginia. The attached statement explains why many supporters of the
Wild Monongahela Act believe that the legislation should be expanded to
include a few key areas deserving and needing protection. These areas
include Seneca Creek, Roaring Plains East and North and East Fork of
the Greenbrier River Areas. We hope these areas will be added to the
final version of the bill. Threats to these places won't allow us to
wait another 25 years to protect them. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
David W. Saville,
Coalition Coordinator.
Attachment.--Statement of the West Virginia Council of Churches,
Christians for the Mountains, Mountaineer Chapter of Trout Unlimited,
West Virginia League of Women Voters, City of Lewisburg and the West
Virginia Wilderness Coalition
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Barrasso, and Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the West Virginia Council of Churches,
Christians for the Mountains, Mountaineer Chapter of Trout Unlimited,
West Virginia League of Women Voters, the City of Lewisburg and the
West Virginia Wilderness Coalition, please accept the following
testimony for the record in support of S. 2581, The Wild Monongahela
Act: A National Legacy for West Virginia's Special Places.
Introduced by both Senators Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) and Jay
Rockefeller (D-WV) this bipartisan legislation designates several new
areas and expands three nationally renowned existing areas, totaling
approximately 47,000 acres within the Monongahela National Forest. The
Wild Monongahela Act is the first piece of legislation to protect
Wilderness in the state in nearly 25 years. Identical legislation (H.R.
5151) has also been introduced in the House of Representative by the
entire West Virginia delegation of Representatives Nick Rahall (D-WV),
Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) and Alan Mollohan (D-WV).
S. 2581 will protect some of West Virginia's most spectacular wild
areas--representing the heart and soul of our ``Wild and Wonderful''
state. Many of these areas are vitally important to the people of West
Virginia. They represent some of our state's best places to recreate
and are deeply important to our state's growing recreation based
economy. These areas are home to many of West Virginia's world class
streams and rivers which are popular destinations for anglers and
whitewater enthusiasts. Protecting their watersheds will ensure high
water quality and help to prevent flooding in communities downstream.
While West Virginian's reasons for supporting this effort vary
widely, it is clear that protecting these areas will help to ensure
West Virginia's great way-of-life and wilderness heritage. Supporters
of new wilderness in West Virginia represent a broad and diverse cross-
section of the state including: the West Virginia Council of Churches,
comprised of 14 denominations approaching 600,000 West Virginians, who
have endorsed protecting more wilderness and drafted and circulated a
faith based statement supporting wilderness; local lawmakers, including
the Lewisburg Mayor and City Council, who, along with numerous other
cities and counties across the State, have passed resolutions
supporting more wilderness; hundreds of health care professionals who
have signed on in support of more wilderness because of its positive
impact on communities health; hundreds of West Virginia businesses who
recognize the economic value of wilderness, sportsmen's groups such as
the Mountaineer Chapter of Trout Unlimited; conservation and civic
organizations as well as thousands of individuals across the state who
have written letters and made phone calls in support.
The special areas protected by S. 2581 include:
Big Draft
Located on the southern tip of the Monongahela National Forest, the
proposed Big Draft wilderness is just twelve miles north of Lewisburg.
It is home to numerous rare species of plants and animals. The proposed
Big Draft wilderness has outstanding recreational opportunities with
over 13 miles of established system hiking trails and a class III
whitewater run. The trout, small-mouth and rock bass fishing along this
route are excellent as well.
Cranberry Wilderness Expansion
This proposed addition to the highly popular Cranberry Wilderness
is located between the Williams River on the North and the Cranberry
River on the South and West. The landscape is predominantly a lush
moist forest of Red Spruce and various hardwoods. This addition would
protect several tributaries of both the Williams and Cranberry Rivers
which are legendary trout streams. The area has an excellent trail
system connected to the existing wilderness and is held in high esteem
by hunters, anglers, hikers and horse packers alike.
Roaring Plains West
A high-elevation plateau which encompasses the highest sphagnum
bogs in the state, and vast expanses of rocky, spruce-studded plains
surrounded by outcrops offering spectacular views of surrounding
mountain ranges. An average of 180 inches of snow falls on the area
annually, creating opportunities for cross-country skiing and
snowshoeing.
Spice Run
This remote and rugged area provides excellent opportunities for
solitude and backcountry recreation. A true wilderness experience
awaits the hunter, hiker or angler who explores this unique area. It
contains the watersheds of Spice, Davy and Kincaid Runs, all native
brook trout streams which drain into the Greenbrier River. The
elevation goes from just under 2,000 feet along the Greenbrier River up
to 3,284 on the top of Slab Camp Mountain. Spice Run, along with Davy
Run and Kincaid Run, cut steep hollows which define the terrain.
Dolly Sods Expansion
Encompassing all of the area known as Dolly Sods North and
protecting most of the upper drainage of Red Creek, this expansion
would add approximately 7,144 acres to the existing Dolly Sods
Wilderness. This plateau features large grassy expanses and bogs with
heath barrens, blueberries and huckleberries. The area is home to rare
Snowshoe Hares and New England Cottontails as well as endangered
species such as the Cheat Mountain Salamander and the West Virginia
Northern Flying Squirrel. For hikers, backpackers and horse-packers,
Dolly Sods is especially popular for its many trails leading across
diverse terrain with excellent backcountry campsites to be found
throughout the area.
Cheat Mountain
One of the most remote of all the proposed wilderness areas, Cheat
Mountain contains the state's largest unbroken stand of Red Spruce.
Special features of the area include the High Falls of the Cheat which
is a major waterfall and favorite destination for hikers and excursion
train visitors. The sound of the river below, in one of its steepest,
most boulderstrewn stretches, adds to the visitor's experience along
the Shavers Fork of Cheat, the highest river of its size in the eastern
U.S.
Earlier this month, the House Natural Resources Committee, reported
out the House Version of this legislation (H.R. 5151). The bill was
amended and while most of the changes were non-controversial, one
amendment dropped the entire, Cheat Mountain area. This amendment
disappointed many supporters of the Wild Monongahela Act. Rather than
dropping an area we had hoped that the House of Representatives would
improve the legislation to include areas left out of the original bill
(both the House and Senate versions of the bill). These areas include
Seneca Creek, Roaring Plains East and North and East Fork of the
Greenbrier.
East Fork of Greenbrier
The proposed East Fork of Greenbrier would permanently protect
important headwaters of the Greenbrier River, which is depended upon as
a source of drinking water by downstream communities. This area is
known for its excellent trout fishing, whitewater paddling, hunting and
hiking opportunities. The area is home to the federally endangered West
Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel and the Candy Darter. Remote and wild
in character, the proposed East Fork of Greenbrier wilderness is a
quiet, peaceful place, with excellent opportunities for primitive and
unconfined recreation. Without wilderness protection this area and
these important headwater streams will continue to be threatened by
commercial logging, oil and gas development and road-building.
Roaring Plains North & East
These two units, which encompass the South Prong of Red Creek
watershed as well as parts of the Flat Rock and Red Creek Plains, are
part of the larger Roaring Plains complex. They are part of the Forest
Service's roadless inventory and are highly qualified for wilderness
status. Connected ecologically and recreationally with Roaring Plains
West and the existing Dolly Sods Wilderness to the north, it makes
sense for these areas to be designated as well since they possess all
the same outstanding wilderness qualities. Both areas are typical of
this region with scenic high elevation wetlands and jaw dropping views.
The areas are threatened by the potential of industrial energy
development in the form of wind turbines.
Seneca Creek
The proposed Seneca Creek wilderness is West Virginia's premier
wilderness candidate. This area is one of the largest unprotected
roadless areas in the eastern United States and is the crown jewel of
the Citizens' Wilderness Proposal. Seneca Creek itself has been rated
as one of America's top 100 trout streams with a naturally reproducing
population of native brook trout and rainbow trout. Because of the lack
of disturbance in the watershed, Seneca Creek and its tributaries have
very high water quality. Seneca Creek is legendary for the backcountry
recreation opportunities it contains but is currently threatened by oil
and gas development going on all around its border. Wilderness
designation is critical to keeping this area just as it is.
While we continue to support S. 2581 we hope that the Senate will
consider adding the areas mentioned above to the legislation. These
special places have no lasting protection currently and could face
pressure from industrial energy development, logging and road building
in the future. Wilderness designation is the best way to ensure they
stay just like they are, wild and wonderful. With all the growing
pressures on the Monongahela National Forest we fear many of these
special places could be lost if we fail to take advantage of this
opportunity.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we strongly recommend
adding these areas to S. 2581 and we thank you for accepting our
testimony. We would also like to thank Senators Byrd and Rockefeller
for their leadership and ongoing commitment to keeping West Virginia
Wild and Wonderful.
______
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Boulder, CO, May 6, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the International Mountain
Bicycling Association (IMBA), I write to offer comments on H.R. 5151--
the Wild Monongahela Act.
IMBA was founded in 1988 and leads the national and worldwide
mountain bicycling communities through a network of 80,000 individual
supporters and 750 affiliated clubs. More than 39 million Americans
participated in singletrack bicycling and 7.6 million were
``enthusiasts'' of the sport in 2004, according to the Outdoor Industry
Association. Nationwide, IMBA members and affiliated clubs conduct
close to 1,000,000 hours of volunteer trail and advocacy work annually
and are some of the best assistants to federal, state, and local land
managers. IMBA teaches sustainable trailbuilding techniques and has
become a leader in trail design, construction, and maintenance. We
promote responsible riding, volunteer trail work and cooperation among
trail user groups and land managers.
We think it is important to protect remote and wild areas and
support Wilderness. We also think it is vitally important to provide
opportunities for healthy, human-powered outdoor activities with
minimal environmental impact. Mountain biking is such an activity. We
will support land use designations that meet the needs of both
bicyclists and the environment.
Unfortunately, federal agency interpretation of the 1964 Wilderness
Act bans bicycle access. Every time a congressional Wilderness bill is
proposed, cyclists risk losing access to trails they have ridden for
years. Further, they lose the potential to build new trails or expand
bicycling access in these lands in perpetuity. IMBA members take
Wilderness bills very seriously and want to be at the table to help
craft land protection legislation. For this reason, bicyclists seek
modifications of Wilderness proposals that will protect the land while
continuing to allow this quiet, low-impact, human-powered recreation on
existing trails. When conflict exists, IMBA suggests boundary
adjustments, non-Wilderness trail corridors, grandfathering in our
existing use, or other land protections such as National Protection
Areas, National Conservation Areas or National Scenic Areas.
Regarding the Wild Monongahela Act, IMBA is very concerned about
the area known as Dolly Sods North and urges a National Scenic Area
designation be used to protect the lands in that area. Dolly Sods North
contains 22.3 miles of high quality looping backcountry trails and is
currently a popular mountain bike destination. It has been a popular
mountain bike destination since the introduction of the first mass-
produced mountain bicycles in the early 1980's. The West Virginia
Mountain Bike Association (WVMBA) began doing trail maintenance on the
trails in Dolly Sods North in the early 1990's and has continued trail
maintenance to this day. In addition, WVMBA has sanctioned competitive
events in Dolly Sods North under a Special Use Permit from the
Monongahela National Forest and contributed trail maintenance as part
of these agreements.
The table below reflects current estimates of trails and mileages
in the area of Dolly Sods North, affected the Wild Monongahela Act. It
may not be exhaustive, but is a good faith effort to try to identify
all the trails open and ridden by mountain bikers. There are more
trails and railroad grades that are not system trails that exist and
are currently used by the public that are not listed here and have not
been inventoried by any organization or agency.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IMBA is concerned that restricting access for bikes in Dolly Sods
North would block access to and from adjoining trails near Timberline
Four Seasons Resort, Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Canaan
Valley State Park, Forest Service Road #19 and other areas of the
Monongahela National Forest. All these areas see significant ridership
and draw mountain bike visitors from throughout the nation. These
access restrictions could significantly harm the economy of Canaan
Valley, Davis and Tucker County, West Virginia.
IMBA proposes using a National Scenic Area designation for the
Dolly Sods North area. On many occasions, Congress has used National
Scenic Areas to protect and preserve wild lands yet allow for
significant and environmentally sound recreation. Most recently, an
NSA-type designation was used in the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act to
allow continuing access to a popular mountain bike riding area, but
also afford wild lands more protection from extractive and motorized
uses. Overall, this alternative will preserve access to trails in Dolly
Sods North as well as provide ample protections for important wild
lands in West Virginia.
In addition to Dolly Sods North, mountain bikers are concerned
about several other areas. The following is a list of trails impacted
in Roaring Plains West and the Cranberry Expansion. Boundary
adjustments or ``cherry stems'' for these routes would mitigate
unnecessary restrictions on bicycle access.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The remaining areas in the bill are all acceptable to IMBA and the
WVMBA. Moreover, we are especially grateful to Chairman Rahall and the
other sponsors for including language requiring the Forest Service to
develop a plan to provide for enhanced non-motorized recreation trail
opportunities on lands not designated as wilderness within the
Monongahela National Forest. We understand that this plan may identify
replacement trails for those lost to Wilderness designations by this
Act, as well as improve the maintenance and sustainability of existing
trails. The West Virginia mountain biking community is counting on the
Forest Service and the sponsors to follow through on this trail
improvement effort. IMBA supports these provisions and urges the
committee retain them in any Senate-passed version of the bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this important
Wilderness bill. IMBA looks forward to working with the committee and
its members.
Sincerely,
Jenn Dice,
Government Affairs Director.
______
Statement of the Alaska Center for the Environment; Alaska Wilderness
League; Alaska Wildlife Alliance; American Birding Association;
American Bird Conservancy; Blue Goose Alliance; Defenders of Wildlife;
Earthjustice; Environment America; Friends of Alaska National Wildlife
Refuges; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife
Federation; National Wildlife Refuge Association; Northern Alaska
Environmental Center; Republicans for Environmental Protection; Sierra
Club; Trustees for Alaska; The Wilderness Society; Wilderness Watch
On April 15, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will
hear testimony on S. 1680, a proposed land exchange that would remove
Wilderness protection from 206 acres of critical wildlife habitat on a
narrow wetland isthmus between the Izembek and Kinzarof Lagoons in
order to build a proposed road. The above mentioned organizations
oppose the road proposal, introduced by Sens. Murkowski and Stevens,
and respectfully request that this letter stating our objection be
included in the hearing record.
The proposed road is not needed. The bill claims the road is
necessary to address the transportation, health, and safety needs of
King Cove. Congress addressed those needs in 1998, when it passed the
King Cove Health and Safety Act. That legislation provided $37.5
million to upgrade King Cove's medical facilities, purchase a
hovercraft to provide regular ferry and emergency medical service
between King Cove and Cold Bay, construct new marine terminals, and
build an unpaved road between the town of King Cove and the connecting
marine terminal.
The hovercraft is working. Hovercraft service began regular
training runs in February 2007, and commenced full-time operation on
August 7, 2007. By all accounts, the hovercraft service has met every
medical evacuation need of the King Cove community since it began its
first training runs in February 2007. The proposed road would cost U.S.
taxpayers many more millions of dollars--for a solution that would be
far less safe and more uncertain than the hovercraft already has proven
to be in regular operation.
The land swap would sacrifice quality--206 acres of critical,
internationally recognized wildlife habitat--for quantity. A road
through the ecologically fragile tundra and wetlands that comprise the
isthmus would sever the ecological heart of the protected Wilderness of
the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The 61,000 acres of proposed
exchange lands do not offer comparable protection or habitat for the
important wildlife species at Izembek and for the designated Wilderness
that would be lost or irreparably harmed by the construction of a road.
When Congress passed the King Cove Health and Safety Act in 1998,
the law specifically prohibited a road through Izembek's federally
protected Wilderness. The current proposals seek to overturn Congress'
explicit intent to protect the Refuge. The Refuge was created to
conserve fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The wildlife
values of Izembek National Wildlife Refuge are globally significant,
and should not be compromised.
A road through Wilderness is not compatible with the purposes for
which Congress created the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge
was created to conserve fish and wildlife populations and their
habitats; to fulfill the United States' international treaty
obligations (such as the four migratory bird treaties and the
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance); to provide for
continued subsistence by local residents; and to ensure water quality
and quantity within the refuge.
We appreciate your consideration of this letter and, again, ask
that it be inserted into the hearing record.
______
Statement of Raymond Watson, Chairman, Association of Village Council
Presidents, Bethel, AK
As the recognized tribal organization and non-profit Alaska Native
regional corporation, for our 56 member indigenous Native villages
within Western Alaska, the Association of Village Council Presidents
(AVCP) continues to have an active interest and concern regarding the
development of a road between the communities of King Cove and Cold Bay
in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and designated Wilderness area.
In 1998, AVCP opposed H.R. 2259, another proposal to build a road
between King Cove and Cold Bay, and our position has not changed
regarding such a proposal.
Attached you will find a resolution* that AVCP and the Waterfowl
Conservation Committee (WCC) passed in 1998 opposing H.R. 2259 which
would have allowed a road to be developed from King Cove to Cold Bay.
Again our position has not changed regarding this matter. Our primary
interest and concern involves the critical habitat for black brant and
other subsistence waterfowl species that utilize the Izembek Refuge
area for staging and feeding during their long and treacherous spring
and fall migrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Document has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta (Y-K Delta) are primary
stakeholders of waterfowl resources, as our customary and traditional
subsistence uses of birds have long sustained us both nutritionally and
culturally. Our people and communities have sacrificed years of
subsistence hunting and egg gathering to allow the Pacific black brant
population to recover to where it is today from decades of habitat
destruction along the Pacific Flyway. To this end, we have worked
cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game and many other state game agencies within
the Pacific Flyway to develop and pursue recovery efforts. After these
years of effort and sacrifice toward restoration of the black brant
population, it would be a step in the wrong direction and would no
doubt undermine our efforts to build a road that would impact critical
black brant and other subsistence waterfowl habitat--Surely a road
constructed through their wilderness habitat will have detrimental
effects on their ability to gather the essential nutrients to continue
their spring and fall migration.
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) sets a priority for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on
federal lands in Alaska. The federal government thus has a legal
obligation to protect subsistence, as embodied in Title VIII of ANILCA.
In the agency's 1987 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Izembek
Refuge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledges that building a
road through Izembek, ``. . . would likely result in significant
adverse impacts to caribou, waterfowl, and furbearer populations,''
which, in turn, ``. . . could result in major, longterm impacts to
subsistence.'' It is for this reason that we can not support the bill
before you today, H.R. 2801. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would
not be fulfilling its legal obligations regarding subsistence and would
undermine the years of work that have gone into restoring the black
brant population by agreeing to move forward with the proposed land
exchange and road development project.
For these reasons, we urge members of the House Natural Resources
committee to vote against H.R. 2801. The enclosed resolution further
clarifies the reasoning behind our opposition to any roads being
constructed through this important feeding and staging area for our
waterfowl.
Thank you for considering our views in this matter.
______
Statement of Tom Irwin, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, on S. 1680
The State of Alaska supports S 1680, legislation that would
authorize a land exchange between the State of Alaska, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and King Cove Corporation to secure road access
between the Alaskan communities of King Cove and Cold Bay. These
communities are located on the Alaska Peninsula and are accessible only
by air or water.
A priority for the Agdaagux Tribe of King Cove, the City of King
Cove and the Aleutians East Borough is to construct a 27-mile road to
Cold Bay, through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, to access the
larger and safer airport at Cold Bay.
This overland link is necessary because both air and water access
to King Cove is treacherous in the frequent stormy weather so common on
the lower Alaska Peninsula. Cold Bay has a much larger, safer airport
and the residents of King Cove need reliable access to the Cold Bay
airport facility for health and safety, including emergency medical
evacuations. A combination road and hovercraft system, established
under the King Cove Health and Safety Act passed by Congress several
years ago, has not safely nor efficiently resolved access problems.
The need for this road link has been identified in land and
transportation plans for at least twenty-five years, including the
Alaska Department of Transportation's Southwest Alaska Transportation
Plan, adopted in 2004.
The land exchange would add valuable and significant acreage to the
Izembek and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuges. Much of the
land that would be added to the refuges is currently owned by the State
of Alaska. Specifically, the State of Alaska is offering to exchange
43,093 acres, or all of the state-owned land contained in two townships
located northeast of Izembek Refuge, in exchange for a 206 acre
casement dedicated to the State of Alaska, through the Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness. The undeveloped state land being
offered to the Refuge is surrounded on three sides by refuge lands and
is habitat for brown bears and caribou. This state land includes the
lower portion of the Cathedral River, which drains the western flanks
of Pavlof Volcano. It is de facto wilderness land. This state land was
included in a recent state oil and gas lease sale, although no bids
were received on these tracts.
The 7,900 acres being offered to the Izembek Refuge by King Cove
Corporation includes valuable waterfowl habitat that straddles Kinzarof
Lagoon at the head of Cold Bay. This land is an inholding within the
existing Izembek Wilderness area. The Corporation is also offering to
sell an additional 10,800 acres of private lands to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for the Refuge.
The road easement that the state would acquire will run
approximately 13 miles through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.
More than half of this road already exists as primitive roads that were
originally built during World War II. The total length of new road
through the Wilderness area is 6.3 miles. The exact location of the
easement will be determined in consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The combined offers from the State of Alaska and the King Cove
Corporation would add 51,000 acres to the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula
National Wildlife Refuges. All of the state land that is being offered
in this exchange would be designated Wilderness by this legislation.
The state would acquire approximately 206 acres that encompass the
road. The state would also acquire a 1,600-acre federal inholding on
Sitkinak Island, a predominantly state-owned island located south of
Kodiak Island.
The State of Alaska recognizes the unique value of the Izcmbek
National Wildlife Refuge. In 1972, the Alaska Legislature set aside the
state-owned tidelands within Izembek Lagoon and adjacent offshore state
lands as a State Game Refuge. These state lands contain eel grass beds
that are the very heart of Izembek Refuge.
As part of this proposal, the state would add more than 4,000 acres
of state-owned tidelands in Kinzarof Lagoon, at the head of Cold Bay,
to the State Game Refuge. The exchange will require approval by our
state legislature as the state lands are quite likely of unequal, but
greater, fair market value that the federal lands being exchanged.
The state is well aware of concerns expressed by various groups who
are opposed to this legislation. Some are concerned about the precedent
set by building a road through a Wilderness Area. Yet, when the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act was passed in 1980, Congress
specifically recognized that transportation facilities may be needed
across the 58 million acres of federal Wilderness lands in Alaska. The
Alaska Lands Act requires Congressional approval for such
transportation corridors through Wilderness.
There are also concerns about increased public access to the refuge
wilderness. The refuge and wilderness area are already accessible from
Cold Bay by existing local roads. Through planning and enforcement of
existing refuge regulations, the impacts of the limited number of new
users from King Cove can be mitigated.
The State of Alaska supports this legislation and stands ready to
commit over 43,000 acres of state land to the National Wildlife Refuge
and Wilderness system. We urge the Committee to approve this bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this legislation.
______
Supporters of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of 2007
h.r. 1011 endorsements
Elected Officials
Senator John Warner
Senator Jim Webb
Congressman Rick Boucher
Congressman Tom Davis
Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis (deceased)
Congressman James Moran
Congresswoman Grace Napolitano
Congressman Bobby Scott
Congressman Frank Wolf
Governor Tim Kaine
Governor Mark Warner (endorsed 2005 bill)
John Moffo, Montgomery County Board of Supervisors
Rupert Cutler, former member Roanoke City Council and former
Assistant Secretary of Agriculture
Local Governing Bodies
Bland County Board of Supervisors/Resolution for areas in
Bland County
Craig County Board of Supervisor/Resolution for areas in
Craig County
Montgomery County Board of Supervisors/Resolution for area
in Montgomery County
Smyth County Board of Supervisor/Resolution for areas in
Smyth County
Local Businesses
Archaeological & Cultural Solutions, Inc./Williamsburg/Alain
Outlaw
Body Balance/Wytheville/Susan Thomasally
Books & Company/Lexington/Anna Lisa Fitzgerald
Bowman Environmental Services, LLC/Daniel Bowman
Cooper Cress Stables/Wytheville/Pam Umberger
Cregger Stables/Smyth County/Doug Cregger
Blue Ridge Mountain Sports
Charlottesville
Virginia Beach
Nellysford
Glen Allen
Richmond
Williamsburg
Blue Ridge Outdoors/Blacksburg
Blue Ridge Outdoors/Roanoke/Bill Wilson--President
Fern Hill Furniture Works, LLC/John Casteen--Owner
Fox Hill Inn/Troutdale/Mark and James Holmes
Galax Storage/Wythe County/Mark and Cathy Stanley
Healthy Handmade Shoes/Rockbridge County/Glenn Leisure--
Owner
Hunter's Den/Craig County/Ellen Horn--Owner
JR's Outdoor Gear/Danville
Jamont Communications/Boyd Johnson
Kissingrock Camp/Looney Cabin/Annie Malone
Lexington Bicycle Shop/Andy Hunter
Monticello Country Ballooning/Charlottesville/Amanda Baskin
Mount Rogers Outfitters/Damascus
M&W Flower Shop/Chatham Virginia
North End Cyclery/Virginia Beach/Eric Koehn
Nutmeg Glass/Rockbridge County/Margaret Carroll
Outdoor Trails/ Roanoke and Lynchburg
Ray Home Improvement/Lexington/George Ray
Shenandoah Bicycle Shop
Social Butterflies/Charlottesville/Linda Marchman
Sole Source/Harrisonburg
Southwest Imports/Wytheville/Donna Muhly
Still Point Press/Charlottesville/Kristin Adolfson
Sunday's Child/Lexington/Lucia Owens
The Bookery/Lexington/Marysue Forrest
Tidewater Sea Urchins/Norfolk/Richard Tarr
Tom Lavelle Veterinary Service/Wythe County
Treehuggers Outdoors/Wytheville/Ian Fiorini--Owner
White House on Jackson Bed & Breakfast/Lexington/Bob Lera
Wild River Outfitters/Virginia Beach/Lillie Gilbert
Tourism Officials, Garden Clubs, Trail Clubs and Outdoor Clubs
Virginia Tourism Corporation
Scenic Virginia
Garden Club of Virginia
Augusta Garden Club/ Staunton, Virginia
Franklin Garden Club/ Franklin, Virginia
Gabriella Garden Club/ Danville, Virginia
Garden Club of the Eastern Shore/ Eastville, Virginia
Martinsville Garden Club
Mill Mountain Garden Club/ Roanoke, Virginia
Nansemond River Garden Club/ Suffolk, Virginia
Roanoke Valley Garden Club
Shenandoah Chapter of the Virginia Native Plants Society
Appalachian Trail Conference for areas that include the
Appalachian Trail
Devil's Fork Trail Club
Outdoor Adventure Social Club
Piedmont Appalachian Trail Hikers
Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club
Southern Shenandoah Valley Chapter of Potomac Appalachian
Trail Club
Local Organizations
Citizens for the Preservation of Craig County/Ellen Coleman
Citizens of Lee Environmental Action Network
Citizens Task Force
Coalition for Job and the Environment
Goshen Alliance
Greater Lynchburg Environmental Council
Ivy Creek Foundation
Jackson River High School Outing Club
Jefferson Chapter of the VA Native Plants Society
Kiwanis Club of Lexington
Living Education Center for Ecology and the Arts
Mountain Heritage Alliance
Patrick Environmental Awareness Group
Preston Forest Homeowners Association/Montgomery County/
Adjacent land owners
Rockbridge Area Conservation Council
Rockbridge County Greens
Sierra Club, Blue Ridge Group
Sierra Club, New River Group
Taking Responsibility for the Earth and Environment
The Clinch Coalition
The Wilderness Conservancy at Mountain Lake/Giles County/
Dave Deshler
Upper James River Chapter of the Virginia Native Plants
Society/ Buena Vista
Wild Virginia
Wythe Conservation Network
State Organizations
500-Year Forest Foundation
Piedmont Environmental Council
The Nature Conservancy, Virginia Chapter
Virginia Audubon Council
Virginia Conservation Network
Virginia Council of Trout Unlimited
Virginia Forest Watch
Virginia Native Plant Society
Virginia Sierra Club
Virginia Society of Ornithology
Virginia Wilderness Committee
Faith Groups
Committee on Stewardship of the Creation, Episcopal Diocese
of Virginia
Charlottesville Friends Meeting Peace and Social Concerns
committee
Louisa County Worship Group
Maury River Friends Peace and Social Justice Committee
Midlothian Friends Meeting Peace and Social Justice
Committee
Trinity Presbyterian Restoring Creation House Church/
Harrisonburg/Lynn Cameron
Petitions Signed and Mailed to Legislators
Blue Ridge Mountain Sports--828 signers
Banff Mountain Festival at UVA Darden School--67 signers
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition--115 signers
Individuals Endorsing the 2004 Bill
Shirley Blackwell/Marion
Chris Bolgiano/Author
Jim Bradley/Bearhunter/Craig County
Paul Cabe/Board member Virginia Society of Ornithology/
Lexington, Virginia
Sharon Cooper/Wytheville
Jerry and Carrie Crawford/Bearhunters/Craig County
Thomas W. Crockett/Gloucester
Linda Danner/Marion
Tom Davenport/Damascus
Lynn C. Euse/Stuarts Draft
Bart Fiegley/Marion
Bob Fener/Long Mountain Center/Amherst
Robert French/ Member Virginia Forestry Association/
Earlysville
William Garlett/Newport News
Steven Hassett/Member Republican National Committee/Virginia
Beach
Alan and Gloria Heath/Blacksburg
Ruth Ann Herring/Lexington/Herring Real Estate Office
Than and Mary Ann Hitt/Blacksburg
John W. Holman
Holly Hueston/Charlottesville
Alice and Bill Hurleboss/PATH members/Marion
Ann Hurt/Garden Club of Virginia
David Jenkins/Blacksburg
Susan Lapis/Southwings Pilot/Abingdon
Laurie Maitre & Bill Ross/Arrington
Claire McBrien/Wythe County/Ecological Educator
Andrew McCarthy/Alexandria
Jennifer Meyer/Charlottesville
Dan Meyers/Lighthawk Pilot/Alexandria
Steve Montgomery/Williamsburg
Nagal Nassau/Charlottesville
Elizabeth Obenshain/Blacksburg
Travis Overstreet/Climbing Coordinator/Odyssey Adventure
Racing
Sharon Ratliffe/Wytheville
Mary Rhoades/Blacksburg
Nathan Richards/Barboursville
John Saunders/Marion
Jim Sexton/Chesapeake
Michael Shackelford/Charlottesville
Ethan Tabor/Blacksburg
Nicole Trask/Danville
Sandra Trask/Charlottesville
Gail N. Vernon/Marion
John Votta/Richmond
Gerald Watts/Palmyra
Travis Weaver/Waynesboro
Dave and Lindsay West/Blacksburg
Lu and Larry Wilhite/Wythe County/Larry is a retired USFS
employee
National and Regional Organizations
Appalachian Voices
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Campaign for America's Wilderness
Scenic America
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition
Southern Environmental Law Center Southwings
The Wilderness Society
Wilderness Support Center
Wildlaw
International Organizations
International Mountain Bicycling Association