[Senate Hearing 110-603]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-603
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND
FORESTS LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
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. 2354 S. 2448
S. 3065 S. 3069
S. 3085 H.R. 2632
H.R. 3473 H.R. 3490
H.R. 3651
__________
JULY 16, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-335 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
Karen K. Billups, 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
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 2
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 22
Bisson, Henri, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior; Accompanied by Avra Morgan, Bureau
of Reclamation................................................. 7
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator From California................ 4
Craig, Hon. Larry, U.S. Senator From Idaho....................... 23
Hinz, Tom, Chairman, Great Gallatin Watershed Council, Bozeman,
MT............................................................. 37
Holtrop, Joel, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 15
McCracken, Jan, Delta County, Commissioner, Delta, CO............ 35
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 33
Wahlquist, Brent, Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement, Department of the Interior.................... 6
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 47
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 53
MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 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. The subcommittee will come to order.
Last week the subcommittee held a hearing on eight public
lands bills, and in an effort to consider as many bills as
possible before the end of the summer, we will examine an
additional nine bills today. A number of them are
noncontroversial. Some do seem to be a bit more complicated and
will take some time to work through. Our intent, however, is to
work to get as many of them as ready as possible for full
committee review.
The specific bills we will consider this afternoon include
S. 2354, to convey Federal lands to the city of Twin Falls,
Idaho; S. 2448, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act;
S. 3065, designating the Dominguez-Escalante National
Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness in Colorado;
S. 3069, the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild
Heritage Act; S. 3085, the Cooperative Watershed Management
Act; H.R. 2632--if I am pronouncing it right--the Sabinoso
Wilderness Act; H.R. 3473, the Bountiful, Utah Land
Consolidation Act; H.R. 3490, Tuolumne Transfer Act; H.R. 3651,
to convey certain Federal land within Camp Williams to the
State of Utah.
At this time, I would like to recognize the subcommittee's
ranking member, and we are going to recognize other members of
the subcommittee.
[The prepared statements of Senator Reid and Mr. McKeon
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator From Nevada,
on S. 3069
I want to thank Chairman Wyden and other members of the Committee
for the opportunity to comment on the Eastern Sierra and Northern San
Gabriel Wild Heritage Act. Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Howard
McKeon and their staffs have worked incredibly hard on this
legislation. They have each reached across the aisle to accomplish
something special here, and I commend them for their vision and their
determination.
As conversations about this legislation continue I hope that some
extra attention can be paid to Furnace Creek Road in the White
Mountains. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have
led a public process over the last many years to determine how much
motorized access is appropriate in the Furnace Creek area. This process
has been highly contentious and is ongoing. My constituents in Nevada,
and particularly in Fish Lake Valley, have invested hundreds if not
thousands of hours in this public dialog. I hope very much that some
resolution can be found on the wilderness designation around Furnace
Creek that meets the interests of both the conservation groups involved
in this effort and my constituents in Nevada for whom this issue is a
serious and long-held concern.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, U.S.
Representative From California, on S. 3069
Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you for including the Eastern
Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Mountains Wild Heritage Act in today's
hearing. As you know, I represent California's 25th district, and am
the sponsor of a companion bill in the House, H.R. 6156.
Having originally championed new wilderness designations in the
109th Congress, I was pleased to have the opportunity to work directly
with Senator Boxer on a new, expanded bill. This legislation follows
over 18 months of direct negotiations, building on the input of our
respective constituencies, Federal agencies and local governments. S.
3069 and its companion in the House, H.R. 6156, are a shining example
of genuine compromise in the pursuit of shared goals.
This legislation calls for 470,000 acres of wilderness additions
districtwide. From snow-capped peaks of the proposed Hoover wilderness
to the high-desert oasis of the White Mountains and green meadows of
the Owens River Headwaters this bill will provide lasting protections
for these world class treasures. In addition the bill designates over
50 miles of the Amargosa River, Cottonwood Creek, Owens Headwaters, and
Piru Creeks as wild and scenic rivers.
Furthermore the bill provides resolution of long-standing winter
recreation issues by legalizing recreation on 11,000 acres in the
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. In addition, 50,000 acres of
Wilderness Study Area are released in the bill, following almost three
decades of Administrative limbo. The totality of this legislation will
greatly benefit the Eastern Sierra region, not only by resolving many
resource related conflicts, but also providing badly needed economic
opportunity and preserving wilderness areas for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is the result of a great deal of
compromise, cooperation, and support. Both Senator Boxer and I care
very deeply about the wild heritage of all the pristine lands
throughout California, and I am pleased that we have been able to come
together and present this legislation. Energetic support from my
constituents in the 25th District has made it a distinct pleasure to
introduce and champion this legislation in the House. I encourage your
strong support of the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Mountains
Wild Heritage Act.
Senator Wyden. Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I also welcome Senator Boxer here.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the staff for adding
S. 2448 to this hearing. Senators Enzi, Baucus, Tester, and I
have introduced this bill to provide a legislative fix for
western States, specifically Wyoming, Montana, and States that
have been certified by the Department of the Interior as having
addressed their reclamation priorities in terms of the
abandoned mine land money.
In Wyoming's case, the executive branch is operating under
a twisted interpretation of the same law which is giving other
western States fits. In Wyoming's case, the Administration is
interpreting the phrase ``seven equal annual installments'' as
an unlimited number of unequal payments, actually grants. So S.
2448 is needed to correct the erroneous interpretation.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to add my welcome to our
witnesses from the Department of the Interior and the U.S.
Forest Service.
With that, I appreciate your willingness to hold this
hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
With your indulgence, what I would like to do is save my
opening statement to precede the testimony on S. 3065 on the
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area, and that way
Senator Boxer can have her say and get on her way.
Senator Wyden. Very good.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing.
I will save my comments relating to S. 3085 for my
questions.
But I do want to submit Senator Crapo's statement for the
record. Senator Crapo has worked very hard on this bill also,
and I want to make sure his comments get into the record.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, Senator Crapo's comments
will be recognized.
[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator From Idaho
I would like to thank Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Barrasso
for holding this important hearing today where you will hear testimony
on the Cooperative Watershed Management Act, legislation that offers a
local, collaborative approach to managing and improving watersheds. I
would also like to commend Senator Tester for his foresight in crafting
this legislation. I am honored to have had the opportunity to partner
with him throughout much of this process.
Local water quality issues are best solved at the local level
through the collaboration of interested stakeholders. All too often,
however, the absence of an adequate, reliable funding source is an
impediment to both individuals who would like to participate in
watershed improvement and watershed management groups who struggle to
carry out existing watershed projects or would like to implement
additional ones. The Cooperative Watershed Management Act would provide
an infusion of Federal funding to assist in the formation of watershed
management groups, the continuation of successful projects, and would
serve as an incentive to bring diverse stakeholders together.
Decisions regarding water management affect us all, and the
Cooperative Watershed Management Act encourages local participation in
local water management decisions. I support this legislation, and would
like to thank Tom Hinz, the Chair of the Greater Gallatin Watershed
Council, for testifying on this bill. I look forward to his testimony.
The committee is also considering a piece of Idaho legislation, S.
2354, which would provide for a land conveyance to the city of Twin
Falls of about 165 acres of public lands currently managed by BLM, to
facilitate effective management of and investment in the city's
proposed Auger Falls Project to improve water quality, restore wetland
habitat for wildlife, and allow for recreation access to the public.
The land exchange, which is supported by both the BLM and the State
of Idaho, will allow the city to consolidate and better manage their
current Auger Falls project, and relieve the BLM of the burden of
managing small fragmented parcels of Federal land interspersed with
those owned by the city. Under this legislation, the city of Twin Falls
will also be required pay all survey and other administrative costs
necessary for the preparation and completion of any patents of and
transfer of title to property.
Thank You Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Senator Boxer, Chair Boxer. You have many
colleagues who want to hear you, including me. So pleased to
see you.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. I am so happy to be here, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you and Senator Barrasso so much. Thank you, Senator
Salazar, Senator Tester, for joining this afternoon.
I am so excited about what I am going to talk to you about,
and most of my testimony is going to be showing you pictures of
these priceless areas because I do believe that when you see
that, you will understand why we are so happy about this bill.
When I say ``we,'' the Eastern Sierra and Northern San
Gabriel Mountain Heritage Act was written by myself and
Congressman Buck McKeon from the other side of the aisle who
represents the areas included in this bill. We have crafted a
bipartisan compromise bill. Believe me, we worked a very long
time on it. It will preserve the magnificent mountains, rivers,
and open spaces of California's Eastern Sierra and Northern San
Gabriel Mountains.
I am also very proud to say that Senator Feinstein wanted
me to announce at this hearing that she has signed on as a
cosponsor. We have been working with her office on a number of
tweaks to the bill.
Specifically, our bill will permanently protect
approximately 470,000 acres of wilderness and nearly 52 miles
of wild and scenic rivers, including a vital section of the
only free-flowing river in the Mojave Desert. Colleagues, these
wild places are truly spectacular. From the 14,000-foot peak in
Mono County's White Mountains to the Amargosa River near Death
Valley, to Magic Mountain in the San Gabriels near Los Angeles,
the proposal includes some of the region's most treasured
wonders, including the specially designated ancient bristlecone
pine forest which contains the world's oldest living trees.
Imagine. The world's oldest living trees.
So now I am going to go to the part I have been waiting
for, showing you the pictures of what we are trying to save
here.
So we are going to go to the Hoover Wilderness chart, and
that is named, by the way, after President Herbert Hoover
because this started in 1931 with the Hoover Primitive Area. So
this is what we want to permanently protect. This area is
adjacent to Yosemite National Park and represents a classic
high sierra landscape of deeply carved glacial valleys,
tranquil alpine lakes, and big pine forests that people around
the world associate with California.
I am going to show you the Ansel Adams additions. Zack, you
can hold those up. Our addition to the Ansel Adams Wilderness
includes the San Joaquin Ridge, Glass Creek Meadow, and the
region's largest old growth red fir forest, and would protect
the pristine headwaters of the Owens River, the Eastern
Sierra's most important River system.
We will look at the upper Owens River next. The bill
designates 19 miles of the upper Owens River as wild and
scenic. I mean, it looks like it comes from an artist's pen.
Senator Salazar. I thought it looked like Colorado.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wyden. Oregon.
Senator Boxer. That is a big compliment to me, let me say.
Senator Wyden. Senator Tester, do you want to get in the
act?
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. These headwaters are truly spectacular and
support one of America's finest and most popular trout
fisheries. This designation would help enhance the area's
fishing economy, and that is so important.
We are going to show you the White Mountains. The largest
and highest desert mountain range, the White Mountains, is the
second largest unprotected roadless area in the Lower 48, and
it contains one of the greatest expanses of alpine tundra in
America, as well as the Great Basin's highest peak.
Now Zack is showing you the John Muir Wilderness. The John
Muir Wilderness additions protect the dramatic eastern
escarpment of the sierra and trout-bearing streams which flow
down into the Owens Valley, while maintaining access to popular
car camping, hunting, and fishing sites.
The Amargosa River. Our legislation designates about 25
miles of the river as wild and scenic. As the only river
flowing into Death Valley, this river is an ecologically
important river in a dry desert area.
In addition to Eastern Sierra, the bill also protects
40,000 acres in the Magic Mountain and Pleasant View Ridge
areas and 7 miles--7 miles--here of Piru Creek, one of the few
year-round trout fishing streams in southern California, all
within Los Angeles County. This is amazing. Within Los Angeles
County, one of the most urban and densely populated areas, so
our people could get to see these wonders.
I hope that these photographs have demonstrated just how
truly special these places are, and why Representative McKeon
and I have worked so hard over the years to conserve them.
Our population in California is estimated to hit 50 million
people in the year 2050. We need to find these places that are
secluded where people can find solitude from an ever-increasing
hectic lifestyle and, moreover, these sensitive areas safeguard
water and air for our expanding populations.
So Senator Wyden, Senator Barrasso, and my colleagues all,
it has taken us literally years to get to this point. I cannot
tell you how hard this was to sit all the stakeholders around
the table. I want to praise my staff for the work that they
have done. Congressman McKeon and I, working together--I think
we really did it. I think we found the sweet spot, and we hope
that you will agree.
So thank you so much for the opportunity to testify on this
bill. I look forward to working with you and certainly with
Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici.
I want to say just an added piece here, which is I know how
hard you are all working in a bipartisan way to move forward
these noncontroversial pieces of legislation. I think it is a
measure of your dedication to the task because we are torn
asunder on so many things, but on this--our heritage--we should
be able to come together. Buck McKeon and I have done it and I
hope you can do it. I look forward to answering any questions
you may have now or in writing or in any way that you would
want me to.
Thank you, Senators.
Senator Wyden. Senator Boxer, I do not have any questions,
but you have clearly toiled long and effectively on this and to
have reached an agreement with your Republican colleague shows
your commitment to this. We are going to put the staff on
working with you immediately. The Majority Leader also is very
interested in this matter and very complimentary of you and
wants to work on issues on the Furnace Creek Road in the White
Mountains. But we are not going to dawdle on this.
Senator Boxer. We will definitely dawdle with you on that
later. But we are ready. If there is a tweak here or there or
something we need to do, we are ready to do it. But we are
excited, and I think you can see why.
Senator Wyden. Colleagues, does anyone wish to ask Senator
Boxer anything? Or we will excuse her at this time.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, all.
Senator Wyden. OK. Thank you, Chair Boxer.
Our next witness will be the Honorable Brent Wahlquist,
Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation; Henri
Bisson of the Bureau of Land Management; Joel Holtrop of the
Forest Service. If all of you will come forward.
Gentlemen, we will make your prepared remarks a part of the
record. Mr. Holtrop has heard me say extra credit for
summarizing your views will be great because I know colleagues
want to ask questions. Why do we not begin with you, Mr.
Wahlquist?
STATEMENT OF BRENT WAHLQUIST, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE
MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Wahlquist. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of
the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here to
submit testimony on S. 2448. I have submitted a short statement
for the record and will be happy to address any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wahlquist follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brent Wahlquist, Director, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, on S.
2448
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you
for the opportunity to submit testimony on S. 2448, a bill to make
certain changes to the 2006 Amendments to the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). This bill would require that funds
distributed to certified States and Indian Tribes under Section 411(h)
be made as direct payments to those States and Indian Tribes as opposed
to using simplified grants for this distribution.
Mr. Chairman, as we explain below, this bill will result in a
significant loss to the US Treasury. Further, the bill would create a
disparate funding advantage to those states and tribes that have no
remaining coal AML problems. Yet addressing those problems was the
basic reason for creating and extending the AML fund. Additionally, if
these funds are distributed as direct payments, then the Treasury would
have to borrow money in advance before States are ready to expend it,
thereby allowing states to earn interest on those funds at the expense
of the Federal taxpayer. That is not prudent fiscal policy. The bill
could also have PAYGO costs. For all of these reasons, the
Administration cannot support the bill.
background
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) has
always used grants to distribute Abandoned Mine Land (AML) funds. When
grants are used to make disbursements, the funds remain in the US
Treasury until they are actually needed to pay obligations by the
States and Indian Tribes. Grants also provide controls to ensure that
funds are spent for authorized purposes, which is particularly
important for grants to uncertified States.
The 2006 Amendments created two new types of Treasury payments to
States and Indian tribes: (1) distribution of Treasury funds in lieu of
the prior unappropriated state/tribal share balance to all states and
tribes over 7 years, starting in fiscal year 2008 (Section
411(h)(1))(prior balance replacement funds), and (2) payments in lieu
of future state/tribal share to certified states and tribes, starting
in fiscal year 2009 (Section 411(h)(2))(certified in lieu payments.)
States and tribes receive funds from Treasury equal to their
unappropriated balances so that those unappropriated funds actually
remain in the AML fund and continue to earn interest that is paid
annually to the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) health care
plans.
As the law is currently written, OSM must continue to use grants to
distribute both Treasury and AML funds. Therefore, for fiscal year
2008, OSM used grants to distribute both Treasury and AML funds under
the 2006 amendments.
For certified States and Tribes, however, we provided a much
simpler process since we do not have a responsibility for approving or
disapproving individual expenditures.
In this first year of distribution, certified states reported that
this simpler process worked well for them. Wyoming, for example, has
already obligated fiscal year 2008 payments for the University of
Wyoming School of Energy Resources operating budget, a School of Energy
Research gasification facility, and other construction projects. Our
proposed rule, published on June 20, 2008 and currently out for public
comment (Federal Register/Volume 73, No. 120 / June 20, 2008), is
consistent with this simpler process.
s. 2448
S. 2448 would require that the Treasury funds described above be
distributed as direct payments to the certified States and Indian
tribes. The effect of this requirement is a significant loss to the
Treasury. The primary effect of this change is that certified states
and tribes would be able to immediately deposit these funds in interest
bearing accounts until spent rather than establishing a line of credit
through a grant against which certified states and tribes can withdraw
funds as needed to meet expenses charged to the grant. The bill does
not alter distribution for uncertified States.
The Department has serious concerns with the consequences of the
direct payment scheme. The effect of this requirement is a loss to the
Treasury. Currently, the unappropriated State and Tribal share balance
in the AML fund earns interest and, pursuant to SMCRA, the interest is
used to help defray the costs of health care for certain retired coal
miners through UMWA heath care plans. In 2006, Congress mandated that
replacement funds come from the Treasury rather than from the AML fund
in order to ensure that the AML fund would not be depleted and would
continue to produce interest for UMWA health care payments. By
requiring that these replacement payments be paid upfront, we will have
to borrow those funds and pay interest on them earlier and in a larger
amount which will be in addition to the interest the AML fund is paying
for UMWA health care.
We are also concerned that the benefit of earning interest on
direct payments would only be available to certified states and tribes
that no longer have any coal AML problems to address, while those
uncertified states with extensive remaining coal AML problems would not
receive this benefit.
Finally, the bill could have PAYGO costs by requiring an immediate
outlay of funds for direct payments. In contrast, simplified grants
provide funds as needed, so the outlays would take place over time.
For these reasons, the Department cannot support S. 2448.
Senator Wyden. Very good. That is a land speed record for
testimony.
Mr. Bisson, why do you not go next?
STATEMENT OF HENRI BISSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY AVRA
MORGAN, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Bisson. Thank you, Senator, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thanks for
inviting me to testify. Because there are so many bills, I am
going to be very briefly summarizing the Administration's
position on each of these.
The Department supports S. 2354, which directs the
conveyance of 165 acres of BLM-administered public lands to the
city of Twin Falls, Idaho to be used to improve water quality
in the Snake River and enhance wildlife habitat. We would like
the opportunity to work on some minor technical clarifying
amendments.
H.R. 3490 directs that 66 acres of land currently
administered by the BLM be taken into trust for the benefit of
the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians in central California. The
Department supports the legislation and would like to work with
the committee on clarifying language.
The Department supports H.R. 3651, which directs the
conveyance of 431 acres of withdrawn public lands to the State
of Utah for the use of the Utah Army National Guard. Again, we
would like to work with you on some language regarding the
reversionary clause.
Three of the bills before the committee today designate BLM
administered lands as wilderness. In general, the Department of
the Interior supports the efforts of congressional delegations
to resolve wilderness issues in their States. Congress has the
sole authority to designate lands to be managed as wilderness,
and we have repeatedly urged that these issues be addressed
legislatively.
The Department is concerned about ensuring that
consideration is given to energy potential when any legislative
proposal for special designation is considered. The BLM has
reviewed the traditional and renewable energy values of these
areas and has determined that there is low or no potential for
energy development within the proposed wilderness areas.
S. 3065 designates approximately 211,000 acres of public
land in the Colorado Counties of Delta, Mesa, and Montrose as
the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and
designates a little over 66,000 acres as wilderness within the
NCA. We support S. 3065 and would like the opportunity to work
on a few modifications to the bill.
The Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage
Act, S. 3069, designates nearly half a million acres as
wilderness, as well as 52 miles of wild and scenic river in the
Eastern Sierra region of California. The designations in S.
3069 are largely on National Forest System lands and we defer
to the Department of Agriculture on those designations.
We support the proposed Amargosa Wild and Scenic River
designation, and with modifications, the proposed Granite
Mountain Wilderness Area to be managed by the BLM.
We support H.R. 2632, which designates nearly 16,000 acres
of BLM-administered lands in northwestern New Mexico as the
Sabinoso Wilderness Area.
Finally, I am submitting testimony on behalf of the
Department of the Interior on S. 3085, the Cooperative
Watershed Management Act. Because of the concerns outlined in
the full testimony, the Administration cannot support the bill.
I am accompanied by Avra Morgan who is from the Bureau of
Reclamation who would be happy to answer any questions
regarding S. 3085.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the
Administration's position on these bills, and I would be glad
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Bisson follow:]
Prepared Statements of Henri Bisson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior
h.r. 2632
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 2632, the Sabinoso
Wilderness Act The Department of the Interior supports H.R. 2632, a
bill designating 15,995 acres of BLM-managed land in northwestern New
Mexico as the Sabinoso Wilderness area.
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 Members of Congress toward this
goal.
The Sabinoso area provides a rugged and dramatic landscape. Deep
sinuous canyons are interspersed with flat-topped mesas in an area that
has changed little over the last several hundred years. While there is
both archaeological and historical evidence of sporadic human
visitation, the rough nature of the terrain has discouraged all but the
hardiest. Today, the canyons and mesas are home to mule deer, elk,
mountain lion, and wild turkey. Golden eagles and turkey vultures soar
off the thermals rising from sandstone canyon walls.
The Department is concerned about ensuring that consideration is
given to energy potential when any legislative proposal for special
designation is considered. The BLM has reviewed the traditional and
renewable energy values of the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness, and has
determined that there is low or no potential for energy development
within the area.
The BLM is currently working with the state on a land exchange
which would result in the acquisition of state land inholdings within
the proposed wilderness. This process should be completed within a
year. We also are in discussions with private landowners in the area
about acquiring either conservation easements or fee title of some of
the private inholdings. The BLM only explores such options from willing
landowners.
The local community has worked in the spirit of cooperative
conservation to reach consensus on the proposed designation. The New
Mexico House of Representatives and San Miguel County, New Mexico have
passed resolutions in support of wilderness designation of Sabinoso.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
h.r. 3651
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 3651, the Utah
National Guard Readiness Act. The Department supports the conveyance of
the lands identified in H.R. 3651 to the State of Utah for homeland
security or national defense purposes. However, we would like the
opportunity to work with the Committee on some modifications to the
reversionary clause.
background
Camp W. G. Williams is located approximately 25 miles south of Salt
Lake City, Utah, in an area of expanding residential development. The
24,000 acre base is a National Guard training site administered by the
Utah Army National Guard and includes training facilities for a variety
of military purposes. Approximately 18,000 acres of the base are
comprised of public land that has been withdrawn to the United States
Army as a training facility for the Utah Army National Guard under the
provisions of Executive Order 1922 and Title IX of Public Law 101-628,
the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990.
H.R. 3651 directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the
State of Utah at no cost approximately 431 acres of the 18,000 acres
currently withdrawn for the purpose of permitting the Utah Army
National Guard to use the conveyed land. The legislation includes a
reversionary clause to return the land to the ownership of the United
States if attempt is made by the State of Utah to sell the land or use
the land for non-National Guard or non-national defense purposes.
Because the public lands proposed for conveyance are currently
withdrawn for the benefit of the United States Army, a portion of the
overall withdrawal to the Army is revoked by this legislation in order
that the lands may be appropriately conveyed. We defer to the
Department of Defense on their position on the partial revocation of
the underlying withdrawal.
As we have expressed in prior statements, the Department generally
supports a conveyance at no cost if the conveyed land is used for
important national security and defense purposes. We would note that
these lands are already withdrawn for military uses to the U.S. Army
for use by the Utah National Guard. We would like clarification why it
is necessary to convey land directly to the State of Utah for use by
the National Guard.
We would like to work with the sponsor of the legislation on some
technical considerations regarding the reversionary clause.
Specifically, the reversionary clause language is broad and would be
difficult for the Department of the Interior to oversee. Additionally,
the Department would like any reversionary clause to be exercised at
the discretion of the Secretary.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.
h.r. 3490
Thank you for inviting me to testify on H.R. 3490, the Tuolumne Me-
Wuk Land Transfer Act. The legislation directs that approximately 66
acres of land currently administered by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) be taken into trust for the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of
the Tuolumne Rancheria (Tribe). The House of Representatives passed
this legislation on April 29, 2008, with an amendment in the nature of
a substitute. The Department supports the bill; however we would like
to work with this Committee to clarify language in the House-passed
bill.
H.R. 3490 represents years of cooperative effort between the Tribe
and the BLM. The Tribe seeks trust status for three parcels of BLM-
managed lands: the first tract, an approximately 50.2 acre parcel, to
establish a cultural center. The second tract, of approximately 15.35
acres, would help meet the Tribe's agricultural, housing, and open
space needs. The third tract, of approximately 0.4 acres, contains a
cemetery where tribal members and other Indians are buried. These
scattered tracts of public lands are adjacent to the current Tuolumne
Indian Rancheria, located just north of the small community of
Tuolumne, in rural northwest Tuolumne County, California.
The land in question has been managed by the BLM pursuant to a 1983
Management Framework Plan (MFP) for the Tuolumne River Management Area.
The MFP was replaced by the Sierra Resource Management Plan (SRMP)
through a Record of Decision on February 15, 2008. The SRMP clearly
identifies these scattered tract parcels as potentially available for
disposal based on current land uses. Transfer of the administrative
jurisdiction of the three parcels from the BLM to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) would therefore conform to the SRMP.
The Department is pleased that H.R. 3490 addresses valid and
existing rights and gaming. Our testimony on H.R. 3490 before the House
Committee on Natural Resources (April 9, 2008) raised a concern about
the timeframe the bill allowed for completing necessary surveys. At
markup, the Natural Resources Committee amended section 3(d) of the
bill as we had recommended. The Department appreciates the positive
action to address our concerns.
We are concerned that language pertaining to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the House-passed bill may lead to
confusion. We would appreciate the opportunity to work with this
Committee on clarifying language.
The Department has had a cooperative working relationship with the
Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians on this requested land transfer and
supports H.R. 3490 with clarification.
This concludes my prepared testimony. I am happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
s. 3065
Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 3065 the Dominguez-
Escalante National Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness
Area Act. The Department of the Interior supports S. 3065 and would
like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the Committee on some
modifications.
background
The nearly 211,000 acres of public lands comprising both the
proposed Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) and
within it the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area span three western
Colorado counties: Mesa, Delta and Montrose. Special designation for
this area recently came to fruition through a collaborative process
driven by the Colorado Congressional delegation, the Mesa, Montrose and
Delta County Commissions, the National Resources and Policy Institute
at Mesa State College and the Public Lands Partnership.
This effort, undertaken in the spirit of cooperative conservation,
seeks to protect astounding landscapes. Red-rock canyon walls and
sandstone bluffs covered in pinyon-juniper tower thousands of feet
above a treasure trove of cultural and historic sites. These canyons
are interlaced with the West's most valuable resource--water. Escalante
Creek and the Little and Big Dominguez Creeks drain the eastern
Uncompahgre Plateau, cascading through sandstone canyon walls
displaying 600 million years of history. A variety of wildlife call
Dominguez-Escalante home, including desert bighorn sheep, golden eagle,
mountain lion, black bear, mule deer and the collared lizard. The area
offers some of the best mule deer hunting to be found anywhere in the
Rocky Mountain West.
Rock art, created by those who came before, tells the story of
shelter and sustenance sought in these canyons and valleys for
thousands of years. Today, the Ute Tribes view these lands as an
important connection to their ancestral past.
S. 3065 proposes to designate 210,677 acres of BLM-managed land as
the Dominguez-Escalante NCA and within it the 66,280 acre Dominguez
Canyon Wilderness Area. Each of the NCAs designated by Congress and
managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is unique. For the most
part, however, they have certain critical elements, which include
withdrawal from the public land, mining and mineral leasing laws; OHV-
use limitations; and language that charges the Secretary to allow only
those uses that further the purposes for which the NCA is established.
Furthermore, NCA designations should not diminish the protections that
currently apply to the lands. Section 4 of S. 3065 designating the
Dominguez-Escalante NCA is consistent with these principles and we
support its designation.
Section 5 of the bill designates over 66,000 acres of the NCA as
wilderness. These lands are currently part of the Dominguez Wilderness
Study Area (WSA). 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 WSAs as wilderness or release them for
other multiple uses and we have repeatedly urged that these issues be
addressed legislatively. We support the designation proposed by the
legislation and would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and
the Committee on possible minor boundary adjustments to ensure
efficient manageability.
The current WSA covers approximately 68,505 acres of BLM-managed
public lands. Approximately 3,000 acres currently managed as WSA are
not proposed for wilderness designation. We recommend the release of
those acres from WSA status. Those acres remain within the NCA but
their release from WSA status will improve efficiency and clarify
management.
There are three unusual provisions in the S. 3065 which are unique
to this area and we would like to briefly describe them. First, section
7(d) (3) allows for the exchange of certain lands within the NCA.
Typically we do not exchange lands within NCAs, however in this case
the exchange of private land within the NCA for public land within the
NCA would further the protective purposes for which the NCA is
established and resolve an inadvertent trespass situation. We support
this provision. Second, section 7(h)(5)(B) allows for construction of
new livestock watering facilities described in existing planning
documents, provided they result in no impairment of the wilderness and
provide for the protection and improved management of the wilderness.
This is consistent with Congressional guidance on grazing in wilderness
and is in accordance with BLM's wilderness management regulations.
Last, section 7(j) makes clear that the legislation does not affect the
preexisting life estate agreement for a single individual within the
wilderness. This agreement has been in place for nearly 20 years and we
support the provision clarifying that there is no intent to modify or
alter that agreement.
The Department is concerned about ensuring that consideration is
given to energy potential when any legislative proposal for special
designation is considered. The BLM has reviewed the traditional and
renewable energy values of this area proposed for designation, and has
determined that there is low or no potential for energy development
within the proposed Dominguez-Escalante NCA and wilderness area.
However, we would note that the BLM has undertaken a planning process
for energy right-of-way corridors as required by section 368 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58). A portion of one of those
proposed corridors (#132-136) crosses the eastern edge of the proposed
Dominguez-Escalante NCA. This proposed corridor on Federal land
provides for an important north-south route connection for critical
energy transmission, crossing the Gunnison River on the eastern side of
the NCA and connecting to an existing designated corridor on Federal
land north of Highway 50. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the corridor planning process under Section 368 was released
in November 2007; a Final EIS is expected to be released in November of
this year. While rights-of-way are not prohibited within NCAs, the
sponsor may want to consider a minor boundary modification to exclude
the proposed corridor from the NCA.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 3065, I
will be happy to answer any questions.
s. 3069
Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 3069, the Eastern Sierra
and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act. The designations included
in S. 3069 are largely on National Forest System lands and we defer to
the Department of Agriculture on designations on lands predominantly
under their jurisdiction. The Department of the Interior supports the
proposed Wild & Scenic River designation on lands administered by the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and, with modifications, the proposed
Granite Mountain Wilderness area to be managed by the BLM.
S. 3069 is a wide-ranging bill which designates nearly half a
million acres of wilderness, 52 miles of Wild & Scenic River, and a
number of special management areas in the Eastern Sierra region of
California. We will limit ourselves to a discussion of those
designations directly affecting BLM-managed lands, specifically the
proposed Amargosa Wild & Scenic River and the proposed Granite Mountain
Wilderness, as well as the release of several BLM-managed Wilderness
Study Areas (WSAs). Additionally, we will address those portions of the
proposed White Mountain Wilderness and John Muir Wilderness Additions
that are managed by the BLM.
The BLM supports that portion of section 6 of S. 3069 that
designates approximately 26 miles of the BLM-managed Armargosa River
under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. This designation is consistent with
BLM planning and has strong local backing. Five separate segments of
the Amargosa are designated including one wild segment, two scenic
segments, and two recreational segments. The Amargosa, known locally as
the ``Crown Jewel of the Mojave Desert,'' is the only free-flowing
river in the Death Valley area and as such provides a rare and lush
riparian space in the desert. This proposed Wild & Scenic River
designation is the result of a grassroots community-based effort
through cooperative conservation.
Section 3 of S. 3069 designates a number of areas as wilderness,
including one that is primarily on BLM-managed lands, and section 5
releases all or part of four BLM WSAs to a wider range of multiple
uses. 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 WSAs as wilderness or release them for other uses.
We would like the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the
Committee on some technical modifications to the wilderness management
language to assure consistency.
The proposed 35,564 acre Granite Mountain Wilderness lies primarily
on BLM-managed lands (approximately 2,700 acres are within the Inyo
National Forest). This is an area of stunning vistas: to the northwest
is Mono Lake with a spectacular backdrop of the Great Basin, and the
Sierra Nevada range soars to the skyline with snowcapped peaks and
granite spires. Wildlife values are high and the area abounds with
raptor nesting sites and provides an intact natural corridor for deer
during critical seasonal migrations.
We support the designation and would like the opportunity to work
with the sponsor and the Committee on possible minor boundary
adjustments to ensure efficient manageability. In addition, we would
like the opportunity to prepare the map of the Granite Mountain
Wilderness to be referenced in the legislation.
The Department is concerned about ensuring that consideration is
given to energy potential when any legislative proposal for special
designation is considered. The BLM has reviewed the traditional and
renewable energy values of the DOI portions of the Granite Mountain
Wilderness proposed for designation and has determined that there is
low or no potential for energy development within the area.
The legislation also releases several WSAs and returns them to a
wider range of multiple public uses as prescribed in BLM's Bishop
Resource Management Plan. Specifically, the bill releases the 6,493
acre Masonic Mountain WSA, the 7,721 acre Mormon Meadow WSA, the 12,840
acre Walford Springs WSA, and those portions of the Granite Mountain
WSA not designated by this bill, approximately 22,481 acres. We support
these Congressional efforts to resolve WSA status. In addition, we
recommend the release of the 760 acres of the White Mountains WSA that
are not designated as wilderness by this bill.
Finally, S. 3069 designates as wilderness several areas of BLM-
managed land that are contiguous to much larger areas of National
Forest System lands designated as wilderness in this bill. The proposed
80,000-acre John Muir Wilderness Additions include five small BLM
parcels totaling 780 acres. The proposed 223,500-acre White Mountains
Wilderness includes five small BLM parcels totaling 1,200 acres on the
western edge of the proposed wilderness and one large 22,300 acre area
on the eastern edge. We defer to the Forest Service on the larger issue
of designation of the John Muir Wilderness Additions and the White
Mountains Wilderness.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3069 as it affects
BLM-managed lands. I'll be glad to answer any questions.
s. 2354
Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 2354. This legislation
directs the Secretary to convey without consideration approximately 165
acres of BLM public lands to the city of Twin Falls, Idaho, to be used
to improve water quality in the Snake River and enhance wildlife
habitat. We understand that the proposed conveyance is part of a
broader project that would accomplish important public purposes, and
the Department recognizes the vision and leadership of the city of Twin
Falls in developing this innovative and cooperative conservation
effort. The Department supports S. 2354. We would like the opportunity
to work with the sponsors on certain clarifying technical amendments.
background
In 2002, the city of Twin Falls purchased about 520 acres of
private land within the Snake River Canyon in order to create a public
park and wildlife habitat with unique environmental and public
benefits. The land, known as Auger Falls, is located about two miles
downstream of the City's wastewater treatment plant, which daily
discharges nearly 7 million gallons of treated wastewater into the
Snake River. The treated wastewater meets or exceeds Federal permit
standards, but still contains nutrients, such as nitrogen and
phosphorus, which tend to promote the growth of mosses and other
potentially harmful aquatic species within the river. The proposed
project would improve water quality in the Snake River by constructing
53 acres of wetlands at Auger Falls. The treated wastewater would be
piped from the treatment plant to the wetlands, where it will be
filtered further by soils, aquatic plants, and organisms, allowing
cleaner water to return to the Snake River. The City's project master
plan envisions acquiring and incorporating 165 acres of adjacent BLM
lands into the Auger Falls Project. The treated wastewater would be
used to establish riparian vegetation in the series of wetlands and to
create wildlife habitat throughout the combined 685 acre site. Public
access would be provided to the entire area, and hiking, wildlife
viewing, environmental education and other dispersed recreation
activities would be made available and encouraged.
S. 2354 would convey to the city of Twin Falls, without
consideration, four parcels of BLM-managed land totaling approximately
165 acres. Under the bill, the conveyed lands would be used to support
public purposes and could not be used for residential or commercial
purposes, except for a limited agricultural exemption to allow for
water quality and wildlife habitat improvements. The conveyed lands
would revert to the United States, at the discretion of the Secretary,
if the lands identified were no longer used in accordance with the
purposes of the bill. The bill also provides that the city of Twin
Falls would pay all survey and administrative costs necessary for the
transfer, and that the conveyance would be subject to valid existing
rights.
The BLM lands identified for conveyance in S. 2354 are isolated
parcels surrounded by private or City-owned lands. Two of the parcels
have no legal public access. We note that among the valid existing
rights on the parcels are a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Water Power Site Reservation (Project No. 565, IDI-5630), a FERC Power
Project Withdrawal (Project No. 6015, IDI-26589), and a United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Water Power Site Classification (Project No.
390, IDI-15798). In accordance with Section 24 of the Federal Power
Act, patents issued for the conveyed lands must include a reservation
to the United States for potential future power site development. We
understand that FERC representatives have indicated the proposed
transfer would have minimal affect on the withdrawals, but we defer to
FERC for its views on this issue.
The Department supports the conveyance identified in S. 2354
because it will help achieve important public purposes and is
consistent with the intent of the Recreation and Pubic Purposes Act.
The bill would maintain and potentially enhance the resource values on
these lands, and we understand it would also contribute to a broader
effort that would provide important public and environmental benefits.
To confirm and strengthen this understanding, we would like to work
with the sponsors to more fully describe the purpose of the conveyance
in terms of the specific goals of the Auger Falls Project. We would
also like to work with sponsors on certain technical amendments to
clarify and facilitate the conveyance process, including providing a
map instead of legal descriptions of the lands to be conveyed.
We appreciate the effort of the city of Twin Falls and the sponsors
to craft an innovative and cooperative conservation effort that will
provide wide-ranging benefits to public lands and the region's
environment.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be glad to answer
questions.
s. 3085
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
provide the Department of the Interior's views on S. 3085, the
Cooperative Watershed Management Act of 2008. The Administration
believes current programs address some of the purposes of this bill and
would like to review its various programs with the sponsors; however,
because of the concerns outlined below, the Administration cannot
support the bill.
This legislation would authorize $199 million to provide grants to
create a new Cooperative Watershed Management Program (Program) that
would facilitate cooperative watershed management groups (Groups).
Participation in the Program would be subject to eligibility criteria,
and these Groups would be made up of a broad cross section of
stakeholders within a given watershed and include tribes and any
Federal agencies with authority in the watershed, including the United
States Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, and
the Department of Commerce (through the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration).
The legislation would require DOI, within 1 year of the
legislation's enactment, to establish an application process for which
an eligible entity would apply for a grant. S. 3085 also would require
DOI to establish criteria that would determine if a management entity
was eligible for a grant. S. 3085 also proposes implementing this
program in three separate phases. The first phase seeks to provide
funding as a way of increasing or establishing membership in the
various management groups, develop a mission statement for the group,
and develop project concepts. The second phase is designed to provide
grants to eligible management groups to conduct watershed management
projects. Finally, the legislation envisions a third phase that would
enable management groups that have completed the requirements of the
second phase and demonstrated demonstrable improvements in the
functioning condition of at least one river or stream in the watershed
to receive multi-year funding.
There are a multitude of groups of various forms with watershed
management interests. The groups are generally grass roots in nature
and structured to meet local needs. Interior agencies participate in
and support watershed groups as appropriate to their local
jurisdiction.
The Department has several concerns with S. 3085. While grant
funding as in S. 3085 would benefit certain of these groups,
implementation of this bill would have to compete for funds with other
ongoing Federal projects. Also, the Federal cost share commitment--
which can range from 50 percent to 100 percent--could leave the Federal
Government as the primary source of funding for these watershed
projects.
Furthermore, the Department's Water for America initiative
contemplates an increased role for Interior agencies working at the
watershed level with urban, rural, and agricultural water users to
stretch existing water supplies and carry out measures to protect
endangered species at high-risk watersheds, thereby averting water
crises. The President's fiscal year 2009 Budget included $21.3 million
for the Water for America initiative.
In addition, the Department's Cooperative Conservation Enhancement
Act (S. 2231), introduced by Senator Bingaman on behalf of the
Administration, would among other things, authorizes grants and
cooperative agreements for funding up to 50 percent of the costs of
planning, designing, or constructing improvements for water
conservation and use purposes. The Department, through the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, also provides financial support to implement the
National Fish Habitat Action Plan, a state-led investment strategy that
fosters local and regional partnerships, which mirror the watershed
management groups envisioned by S. 3085. S. 2231 also would clarify
existing partnership and cooperative agreement authorities while
reducing administrative barriers.
The Department is well aware of the challenges western water users
are facing as a result of drought and increased demand for limited
water resources. Further, we agree that many of the best solutions to
the challenges faced by individual watersheds come from the local
level. Toward resolving these problems, Interior agencies have subject
matter experts on the ground in these watersheds, and, Reclamation in
particular, are working with local entities to address short-and long-
term water challenges. We remain concerned, however, that the new
program would compete with existing funding for ongoing projects, and
could be duplicative of those efforts.
The Department understands the importance of continuing its
coordination and participation with local watershed groups and is
continuing to explore options that will provide significant benefits to
the water users and public. Thank you for the opportunity to present
the Department of the Interior's views on this legislation.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Bisson, thank you.
We have been joined by the chairman of the full committee,
Senator Bingaman, also Senator Craig.
I think what we will do now is we will have you go, Mr.
Holtrop, and then we will go to Chairman Bingaman. We will go
to Senator Craig for any opening statements they would like to
make. Then we will have questions.
Mr. Holtrop.
STATEMENT OF JOEL HOLTROP, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST
SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Holtrop. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to provide the Department of
Agriculture's views on S. 3069 and H.R. 3473. You have my full
statement for the record. So this afternoon I will provide you
with a brief summary.
The Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage
Act is a large and complex bill. It would designate more than
470,000 acres of new wilderness and about 52 miles of wild and
scenic river. It creates a number of special management areas
affecting both National Forest System and Bureau of Land
Management lands.
The Department supports many of the provisions of this
bill, including many of the wilderness and wild and scenic
river designations. We also appreciate the attention placed on
motorized winter recreation. We are, however, unable to support
all of the proposed designations.
The Forest Service engages citizens in its land management
planning process, and in this process, we work cooperatively
with them to develop wilderness recommendations. These forest
plans inform our views on this legislation.
In general, the Department supports designation for
wilderness areas that were recommended for wilderness in our
forest land management plans. We would not oppose wilderness
designation by Congress for most of the other proposed areas if
certain boundary adjustments and technical corrections are
made.
In addition, we would not oppose if issues that we
identified today are addressed. We would like to discuss
specific boundaries with the subcommittee and bill sponsors.
In summary, the Department supports the many aspects of S.
3069 which would add outstanding landscapes in the Eastern
Sierra and Northern San Gabriel areas of California to the
wilderness preservation system. As I have testified before, the
Forest Service has always championed wilderness. We care about
maintaining the integrity of wilderness areas as places that
are dominated by forces of nature and that offer outstanding
opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined
recreation. For those reasons, we would like to work with the
subcommittee and the bill's sponsors to address our concerns.
Turning to H.R. 3473, the Bountiful City Land Consolidation
Act, the Department support its concepts. The current bill does
not reflect a number of provisions that are needed before we
can support this legislation. The bill proposes to exchange an
urban parcel of National Forest System land adjoining the city
of Bountiful for watershed lands and funds to purchase
additional lands on the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta National
Forests in Utah. The national forest urban parcel includes a
shooting range operated under permit to the local Lions Club.
The club desires to invest in shooting range improvements, and
the city of Bountiful would like to assist the club.
For the Department to support the legislation, we request a
few important changes and clarifications such as providing for
a cash equalization payment in excess of 25 percent, providing
for the city to assume liability for the hazardous waste
associated with the shooting range, requesting flexibility to
conduct environmental analysis at an appropriate level. The
bill should clearly state that the agency has authority for
direct or competitive sale of the urban parcel, and the bill
should provide for a 2-year timeframe for the city to acquire
the property.
Let me be clear. The Forest Service does not oppose target
shooting on national forests. Nevertheless, local partners are
often better equipped to manage these facilities. In this case,
it would be a better fit for the city to own the land and the
Forest Service to manage the lands within the surrounding
watershed.
That concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer
any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holtrop follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joel Holtrop, Deputy Chief, National Forest
System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, on S. 3069 and H.R.
3473
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department of Agriculture's views on the
Forest Service bills before you today: S. 3069: The Eastern Sierra and
Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act and H.R. 3473: the Bountiful
City Land Consolidation Act.
s. 3069: the eastern sierra and northern san gabriel wild heritage act
S. 3069 is a large and complex bill that would designate more than
470 thousand acres of new wilderness and about 52 miles of wild and
scenic river. It would create a number of special management areas, and
would establish specific management direction for wilderness areas
designated under this Act. These designations would affect both
National Forest System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands.
Our discussion is focused on proposals involving NFS lands.
The Department supports many of the provisions of this bill,
including much of the wilderness and wild and scenic river
designations, as well as the attention focused on motorized winter
recreation. However, we are unable to support all of the proposed
designations because of various conflicting uses or because the areas
do not meet the criteria established by the Wilderness Act of 1964 and
Forest Service policy. Questions and concerns remain on some of the
bill's provisions. One area of special concern relates to the clarity
and technical adequacy of the maps that accompany this bill and has
posed a challenge to our ability to understand the extent of the bill
and assess implications regarding on-the-ground management of areas
within, and adjacent to, proposed boundaries. We would like to work
with the subcommittee and bill sponsors to address these and other
outstanding issues.
Consistent with the Wilderness Act and National Forest Management
Act, the Department supports wilderness designation for areas that are
dominated by the forces of nature, and that offer outstanding
opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. The
Forest Service engages the public in its land management planning
process as a means of collaboratively developing wilderness
recommendations. The Forest Plans for the three National Forests on
which these designations would occur have informed our views on this
legislation.
proposed wilderness areas
Magic Mountain and Pleasant View Ridge
S. 3069 would designate 13,709 acres as the Magic Mountain
Wilderness and 28,424 acres as the Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness in
the Angeles National Forest, for a total of 42,133 acres of new
wilderness. Because these areas were not recommended for wilderness in
the Angeles National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan's 2005
Record of Decision, the Department cannot support their designation
unless certain boundary adjustments and corrections consistent with the
Forest Plan are made to address the issues listed below.
The Forest Plan allocated the majority of these acres (36,871) to
Backcountry Non-motorized use. Backcountry nonmotorized areas are
managed to meet the physical, managerial, and social settings
consistent with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum descriptions for
semi-primitive non-motorized (SPNM) recreation. They provide a wide
variety of dispersed recreation opportunities and settings. Natural
processes are the primary agents for vegetative change, with vegetation
management used only to protect the resource or complement the
recreational value. To minimize potential conflicts, the continued use
of the current Forest Plan designation remains appropriate, but the
Department would not object to the designation by Congress of these
lands as wilderness. The remaining acres are allocated to Backcountry
Motorized Use Restricted (2,349 acres), Developed Area Intermix use
(1,158 acres), and Critical Biological use (774 acres).
These Forest Plan land management designations accommodate several
different uses within these areas that wilderness designation could
potentially impact. There are four mining operations located in the
proposed Magic Mountain Wilderness. In the proposed Pleasant View Ridge
Wilderness, there are several linear special use permits, including
water and electric lines that would require mechanical equipment to
access and maintain, a developed trail camp that serves hikers on the
Pacific Crest Trail, and active fuel reduction projects that provide
defensible space in the wildland urban interface. To minimize these
potential impacts, we suggest the continued used of the current Forest
Plan designation remains appropriate.
If wilderness areas are designated on the Angeles National Forest
beyond those recommended in the Forest Plan, we suggest the areas
allocated as backcountry non-motorized use would be more suitable than
the other areas. We would like to work with the subcommittee and the
bill's sponsors to adjust boundaries to allow most current uses to
continue.
Hoover East and Hoover West Additions on the Humboldt-Toyaibe National
Forest
S. 3069 would designate a total of 76,982 acres of new wilderness
on the Humboldt-Toyaibe National Forest in the following areas: 39,815
acres as the Hoover East Wilderness and 37,666 acres as the Hoover West
Wilderness. A majority of these acres were recommended for wilderness
designation in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land Management
Plan. Therefore we support their designation as wilderness, although we
would like to discuss specific boundaries with the subcommittee that
are consistent with Forest Plan recommendations. For example, the
Hoover East Addition includes two large ``cherry stem'' wilderness
exclusions, which are narrowly drawn corridors to exclude designated
roads, travelways, or other areas from wilderness designation, and
other boundary lines that do not coincide with the Forest Plan
wilderness recommendations. We support the Forest Plan recommendations
in their entirety.
Emigrant Wilderness Addition
S. 3069 would add approximately 251 acres of the Humboldt-Toiyabe
National Forest to the adjacent Emigrant Wilderness, which is currently
managed by the Stanislaus National Forest. This area is allocated as
semi-primitive non-motorized recreation in the current Forest Plan. We
oppose designation of this area as wilderness due to additional
difficulties that we would anticipate in managing oversnow vehicle use,
which is already difficult here because of the nature of the terrain
and conflicts with motorized crossing of the Pacific Crest National
Scenic Trail. We would like to discuss the management situation in this
area with the subcommittee and the bill's sponsors.
White Mountains Wilderness, Granite Mountain Wilderness, and Additions
to the Ansel Adams, Hoover, and John Muir Wildernesses
Most of the lands that would be designated as wilderness by S.
3069, approximately 313,400 acres, are located within the Inyo National
Forest. This includes16,450 acres of an addition to the existing Hoover
Wilderness (Hoover-Bighorn), 15,247 acres of the Owens River Headwaters
to be added to the Ansel Adams Wilderness, and 79,850 acres to be added
to the John Muir Wilderness. There are also two new wilderness areas
designated by S. 3069: White Mountains Wilderness (199,000 acres on NFS
lands) and the Granite Mountain Wilderness (2,900 acres on NFS lands).
The other portions of these proposed wilderness areas are located on
lands administered by the BLM.
Several of these proposed designations were not recommended as
wilderness in the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management
Plan (Forest Plan), which was completed in 1988. The Inyo National
Forest Plan recommended that approximately 172,600 acres be designated
as wilderness, but not all of those acres coincide with the bill's
proposals. However, since the Plan's approval in 1988, many of the
issues, concerns, and conditions that informed the Plan decisions have
changed, and merit reanalysis.
In this regard, the Department supports designation of those acres
recommended for wilderness designation in the Plan. The Department
prefers to address other areas in light of changes mentioned above
within the context of a forthcoming revision of the Forest Plan, but
would not oppose wilderness designation by Congress for most of the
other proposed areas, if certain boundary adjustments and technical
corrections are made and if issues that we identify today are
addressed.
Within the White Mountains, the Forest Plan recommended 120,008
acres as wilderness. Subsequent to the Forest Plan decision, Congress
designated approximately 10,000 acres of the White Mountains as the
Boundary Peak Wilderness Area within the State of Nevada. S. 3069 would
add an additional 89,000 acres within the White Mountains beyond the
Plan recommendation. A majority of these additional acres in the White
Mountains were identified in the Forest Plan for semi-primitive
recreation which includes opportunities for motorized use on designated
routes. The Inyo National Forest is currently in the planning process
for designating routes through a travel management planning process
which, depending on the final decision of the planning process, may or
may not concur with the routes designated as ``cherry stems'' in S.
3069. We would like to work with the subcommittee and the bill's
sponsors to address concerns.
motorized corridors in proposed wilderness
Overall, we are concerned with the extensive use of ``cherry
stems.'' The areas that would be designated in this bill include over
100 miles of ``cherry stems'' on NFS lands. In our view, it is
important to maintain the integrity of wilderness by designating only
those areas which are, as stated in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and in
Forest Service policy, ``dominated by the forces of nature''. Allowing
for continued motorized use miles into a designated wilderness, even
along designated corridors, can lead to motorized incursions from the
roadways, noise, and other intrusions, complicating wilderness
management. Consistent with relevant Forest Plans, we recommend that
areas where motorized use is necessary for uses such as range
management, hunting, undeveloped recreation, and forest administration
be omitted from wilderness designation. Such adjustments would result
in more manageable boundaries for any proposed wilderness.
Should this legislation move forward with the ``cherry stems'' as
mapped and that are inconsistent with relevant Forest Plans, we would
like to work with the subcommittee on establishing corridors wide
enough to allow for proper maintenance. Many of these routes are within
drainages that are prone to washouts necessitating rerouting or
reconstruction. In addition, some of the boundaries are very close to
paved high speed roads which incur a high level of use, as they provide
access to popular recreation opportunities such as dispersed camping,
hang gliding and technical rock climbing.
Within the Inyo National Forest, an additional 11 miles of ``cherry
stemmed'' roads are within inventoried roadless areas and are not
designated as National Forest System roads. We would like to discuss
this situation and inconsistencies with the Forest Plan with the
subcommittee and bill's sponsors.
In addition, on the Inyo National Forest, approximately 32.3 miles
of non-system routes as well as 1.1 miles of system road are not
``cherry stemmed'' but are within the boundaries of the proposed
wilderness areas. These routes would require conversion to trails or
decommissioning to protect resource values.
wild and scenic rivers designations
S. 3069 would designate approximately 26.35 miles of streams on NFS
lands as part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System; 19.1 miles of Owens
River Headwaters on the Inyo National Forest and 7.25 miles of Piru
Creek on the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests.
The Forest Service has not conducted a wild and scenic river
suitability study for either of these rivers. The Forest Service did
make a determination of eligibility. Of the Owens River Headwaters
proposal, all of Glass Creek, the lower portion of Deadman Creek and
the 1.0-mile segment of the upper Owens River were found eligible for
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Segments A, B and the
majority of segment C of Deadman Creek, however, do not possess
outstandingly remarkable values and were found ineligible. Consistent
with these determinations, the Forest Service supports designation of
the eligible river segments. While the Department prefers to address
other areas in a manner consistent with relevant determinations, we
would not oppose designation of the ineligible segments of Deadman
Creek because of their contribution to protecting the Owens River
Headwater's outstandingly remarkable values while avoiding the creation
of new management conflicts. We also wish to work with the subcommittee
and the bill's sponsors to clarify river classifications in this
proposal.
Section 6 of the bill incorrectly references the Secretary of the
Interior as the administrator for the Owens River Headwaters (#172).
The bill should be revised to indicate the Secretary of Agriculture as
the administrator.
The two segments of Piru Creek proposed in this bill are both
eligible with an outstandingly remarkable value of geology. The Forest
Service does not oppose this designation because it would have little
effect on current and future resource management.
ancient bristlecone pine forest designation
S. 3069 would designate approximately 28,991 acres of the Inyo
National Forest as the ``Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest'' to conserve
and protect Ancient Bristlecone Pines.
This area contains groves of the oldest living trees in the world.
We would like to work with the subcommittee on making minor boundary
adjustments to add additional acreage to this proposal to ensure that
all significant groves of ancient Bristlecone Pine are protected under
this designation. The Department would support this designation if the
bill is amended to remove the requirement in section 9(c) 4 for
development of a new management plan for this area. As recognized in
the bill, the 1988 Forest Plan provides sufficient direction for
protection of this area, and the requirement to conduct additional
planning would require the redirection of funds currently directed at
the management of these outstanding resources.
bridgeport winter recreation area
Section 7 of S. 3069 would create a new designation for
approximately 7,680 acres of land on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National
Forest called the Bridgeport Winter Recreation Area. The Department
supports this designation based on an Environmental Assessment signed
in 2005, which includes many of the same management prescriptions
included in S. 3069. Accordingly, our support is contingent on
amendment of the bill to remove section 7(d), which would require the
Secretary to develop a winter use management plan. In addition, we are
concerned about section 7(f), which would require the Secretary to
establish a snowmobile crossing point along the Pacific Crest National
Scenic Trail, and would like to discuss our concerns with the
subcommittee and the bill's sponsors.
management of ``area x'', humboldt-toiyabe national forest
Section 8 of S. 3069 would designate approximately 3,200 acres
referred to as ``Area X'' as a snowmobile use area. The Department
would not oppose this designation if the language is amended to clarify
that summer motorized travel will be restricted in ``Area X'', a
management prescription that currently applies to only a portion of the
surrounding area.
other management considerations
Outfitting and Guiding and Pack Station Considerations
We are concerned about the potential impact that the proposed
designations may have on existing outfitting and guiding and pack
station operations on the Inyo National Forest and wish to advise
Congress of these potential impacts prior to its enactment of
designations. Without specific language to clarify the intended
purposes of the proposed additions to the John Muir, Ansel Adams, and
Hoover Wilderness areas, the proposal could directly affect the amount
and location of existing commercial uses in these additions.
Each of these wilderness areas has specific quotas on recreational
use and, in some cases, court-ordered restrictions that could apply to
the additions in the absence of explicit language to the contrary. For
instance, the Inyo and Sierra National Forests are currently required
by a court order to limit commercial pack stock operations in the John
Muir and Ansel Adams Wilderness Areas. Many of the commercial services
in these wilderness areas that were intentionally directed to non-
wilderness areas to reduce impacts on the wilderness areas would now be
included in these proposed wilderness designations. Unless the bill
would allow continuation of authorized outfitting and guiding that are
currently conducted on lands that would be added to these wilderness
areas, the number of service days allocated for outfitting and guiding
on those lands would have to be reduced, per the court order.
Section 4(j) of the bill may have been intended to address the
foregoing concern. However, we believe additional clarification is
needed. We would like to work with the subcommittee and the bill's
sponsors to address these issues.
Management of Research Natural Areas
There are three Research Natural Areas (RNAs) within the boundaries
of wilderness areas proposed by this bill: Harvey Monroe Hall RNA
(Hoover-Bighorn Additions), McAffe Meadows RNA (White Mountains), and
White Mountains RNA (White Mountains).
RNAs are administratively designated areas within national forests
to be permanently protected and maintained in natural condition for the
purposes of maintaining biological diversity, conducting non-
manipulative research and monitoring, and fostering education. RNAs
help preserve our Nation's natural heritage for future generations. The
protection afforded to RNAs is a critical step in maintaining a range
of biological diversity of native ecosystems and species. Because they
are protected in a natural state, RNAs also provide valuable
opportunities for monitoring of long-term ecological change, and
comparison of the effects of resource management activities against
unmanaged controls.
RNAs that are representative of common ecosystems in natural
condition serve as baseline or reference areas for those ecosystems.
Each RNA can have its own public use restrictions in order to protect
its unique condition. These may be more restrictive than what is
normally allowed in designated wilderness, such as prohibiting
overnight camping. We will continue to address RNA management needs
through our Forest Land Management Planning process.
Administrative Jurisdiction of Wilderness Areas
S. 3069 would designate as wilderness several areas of BLM lands
that are contiguous to much larger areas of NFS lands with existing
wilderness. The proposed John Muir Wilderness additions include five
small BLM parcels totaling approximately 780 acres. The proposed White
Mountains Wilderness includes five small BLM parcels totaling 1,200
acres on the western edge of the proposed wilderness. To ensure
efficiency and consistency in wilderness management, it may make sense
to transfer the administrative jurisdiction of these small parcels from
the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture and
exclude the proposed 22,300 acre area on the eastern edge. We would
also propose transferring administrative jurisdiction over the 2,700
acres of NFS lands in the proposed Granite Mountain Wilderness to the
Secretary of the Interior to improve management over these small
parcels. We would like to further discuss this idea with the
subcommittee.
Map Concerns
The Department has many concerns regarding the maps that are
referenced in the legislation. In general, the maps are difficult to
understand and are technically inadequate due to gaps in the Geographic
Information System data and improper labeling. Because they are vitally
important to our on-the-ground management and implementation of
Congress's direction, we would like to work with the subcommittee and
bill sponsors to ensure the maps are adequate.
Summary
In summary, the Department supports the many aspects of S. 3069
that are consistent with relevant Forest Plans and which would add
outstanding landscapes in the eastern Sierra of California to the
Wilderness Preservation System. As I have testified before, the Forest
Service has always been a champion of wilderness. We care about
maintaining the integrity of wilderness areas as places that are
dominated by the forces of nature, and that offer outstanding
opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. For
those reasons, we would like to work with the subcommittee and the
bill's sponsors on our many specific concerns.
h.r. 3473--the bountiful city land consolidation act
When the Bountiful City Land Consolidation Act was considered
before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of
the House Natural Resource Committee, the Department testified in
support of enactment of H.R. 3473. The Department offered a number of
amendments regarding mostly minor technical issues. The Department
continues to support the concept of a bill as embodied by an amended
H.R. 3473 that would authorize an exchange of urban interface lands
which may be more appropriately managed by Bountiful City for lands in
the watershed above the City, and would authorize the Secretary to
retain and expend funds received by the Secretary for the conveyance in
order to acquire additional land or interests in land to be included in
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
However, the bill that passed the House, and that is under
consideration by the subcommittee today, is different from the bill we
previously testified upon in a number of significant ways. As written,
the current bill does not reflect a number of provisions that are
needed for the Department's support. I will address the most important
of these with you today.
The bill that was introduced in the House and the bill under
consideration today, H.R. 3473 would provide for the conveyance of up
to 220 acres of an ``urban'' parcel of National Forest System lands
adjacent to Bountiful City, Utah in exchange for 1,680 acres of
environmentally significant headwater lands, interior to the National
Forest, to be included within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This
exchange of land could benefit both Bountiful City and the National
Forest System by consolidating land ownership if exchanges by the
parties reflect equitable values.
The bill as introduced in the House would have provided for the
following: 1) an equal value exchange of land between the Forest
Service and Bountiful City and the authority for the Secretary to
accept, if necessary, a cash equalization payment in excess of amounts
authorized under current law; 2) a requirement that the portion of the
parcel containing the shooting range be conveyed first; 3) the
authority for the Secretary 2 years after the date of enactment, to
dispose of any remaining portion of the National Forest System parcel
by competitive means; and, 4) the authority for the Secretary to
collect funds resulting from the conveyances under the bill, to be used
for National Forest purposes, including acquisition of lands on the
Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests.
Technical amendments suggested by the Forest Service to Committee
staff included: 1) a provision to require the City to assume all
liability for the shooting range located on the parcel to be conveyed
and the past, present, and future condition of the land upon which the
shooting range is sited; and 2) a provision to provide for an easement
for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and to provide for other outstanding
rights.
Both the bill as passed in the House and before you today would
provide for an equal value exchange of land between the Forest Service
and the city of Bountiful, and subsequent conveyance of the remaining
Federal land, should certain conditions be met. These provisions would
benefit the National Forest System by providing the agency with the
authority to convey whatever portion of the isolated parcel of National
Forest System land that may remain and to collect the funds for
acquisition of lands to be included in the Wasatch-Cache and Uinta
National Forests.
However, under this bill, the Secretary would not be authorized to
accept a cash equalization payment in excess of the 25 percent limit
authorized by section 206(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA). A consultation conducted recently indicates that the value
of the Federal parcel will exceed the value of the Bountiful City lands
and the 25 percent threshold. Thus a cash equalization payment is
likely to be necessary in order to reflect exchanges by the parties
that are of equitable value. It is unlikely that the Forest Service and
Bountiful City would meet their respective land adjustment and
consolidation goals without a provision for a cash equalization payment
in excess of the 25 percent limit and thereby protect Federal taxpayer
interests, so the Department is unable to support the removal of this
provision from the bill.
Further, the Department requests that the bill language clarify
that the conveyance of the remaining Federal land may be achieved
through competitive sale or direct sale. Without the sale provision,
the Forest Service would have limited authority to convey a remaining
parcel of National Forest System land. This provision would aid in
managing the National Forest as it would eliminate the need for the
Forest Service to manage an isolated and fragmented parcel of land and
would more effectively marshal sale proceeds for the acquisition of
lands or interests in land on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
The bill would require an amendment to the Forest Plan and a public
process consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
if the Secretary disposes of land identified for possible conveyance
and not exchanged under section 2(a) of the bill. While the Forest
Service is committed to undertake an environmental analysis, the agency
would prefer to retain the flexibility to perform the analysis at the
most appropriate level.
This bill currently includes a provision to provide for an easement
for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and to provide for other outstanding
rights. However, it does not include a provision requiring the City to
assume the liability for the shooting range and the past, present, and
future condition of the land upon which the shooting range is located.
This is a critical concern for the Department.
In summary, the concept embodied in this exchange is one the
Department supports. Exchanging a heavily used urban parcel containing
a shooting range to the City for 1,680 acres on the mountainside above
the City plus the ability to purchase additional lands has great merit.
Our concerns are in the details of liability as related to the
disposition of the shooting range, cash equalization, and streamlining
the administrative and analysis process for both parties.
This concludes my prepared statement and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
Let us go to the chairman of the full committee, Senator
Bingaman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for letting me sort of parachute into your hearing here for
just a minute.
I wanted to speak just about one of the bills that is on
your list today. That is H.R. 2632, the Sabinoso Wilderness
Act. I know Mr. Bisson just indicated that the BLM supports
this legislation. I am very pleased to see that.
This is a bill that Representative Tom Udall from my home
State introduced. It is a bill I strongly support. It would
designate 16,000 acres of public land that are currently
managed by the Bureau of Land Management in San Miguel County
in my State. It does have the strong support of the county
commission, the San Miguel County Commission, and strong
support of the New Mexico legislature. Both have passed
resolutions in support of this legislation. Clearly, I think
anyone who has seen this area of our State recognizes the
wildlife habitat and the important wilderness characteristics
of the area that need to be preserved.
Earlier this summer, the House passed H.R. 2632 on a voice
vote. I am very glad to see the committee considering it today,
and I hope we are able to move it through the committee as soon
as possible and to the Senate floor and then on to the
President for signature.
Thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, and I am
anxious to work with you on it to address exactly the issues
you have raised.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy. I
am here not only for the full agenda, but for two bills
specifically, S. 2354 and S. 3085.
S. 3085 is a bill offered by Senator Tester and Senator
Crapo. Senator Tester, did you enter Senator Crapo's statement
for the record?
Senator Tester. I did, and thanks for asking.
Senator Craig. Great. Thank you for doing it.
It is a cooperative watershed management act. We think it
is a very good piece of legislation. I am a sponsor of it, and
I thank them and thank Senator Tester for his leadership.
I would ask unanimous consent that my statement on that
become a part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, that will be so ordered,
and we will be working closely with you, Senator.
Senator Craig. Secondarily, and certainly as important is
S. 2354, which is a pretty typical western kind of problem as
we grow in an urban sense and that is the interface of private
land with public land and the need to grow and public land is
there either in the way or in this instance needing to be
brought to change. We are talking about 165 acres in Twin
Falls, Idaho between the city itself and its waste treatment
plant. The desire of the city to acquire that property and use
it for open space, access, all of those kinds of things, all in
the appropriate fashion and a critical important piece of
legislation that Senator Crapo and I have worked on,
Congressman Mike Simpson of the 2nd district, in which the city
of Twin Falls resides--and so we thank the committee for the
consideration of that.
For the sake of time, I will ask unanimous consent that my
full statement on that be a part of the record also.
Senator Wyden. Without objection, that will be so ordered.
[The prepared statements of Senator Craig follow:]
Prepared Statements of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator From Idaho
s. 3085
Background
LEC is a cosponsor of S. 3085 the Cooperative Watershed Management
Act of 2008 sponsored by Senator Crapo and Jon Tester.
This legislation would create a granting program under the
Department of the Interior to encourage the formation of watershed-wide
management groups.
Opening Statement
I would like to thank Senators Crapo and Tester for their
leadership on this bill.
I would like to remind our audience how important watershed
management is to maintaining an environmentally and economically
healthy watershed.
Research shows that most of our water quality and management issues
are best resolved at the local levels through a consensus of different
groups with different interests.
The question becomes, how can we pull these various groups together
and use our resources to encourage watershed management in the most
efficient and productive manner.
S. 3085 will aide in this effort by creating a grant program that
would encourage the formation of watershed-wide management groups.
These groups would be able to handle our most pressing local
watershed problems.
Especially those that relate to water availability and quality.
The new grant will also give greater funding to pilot projects
And will give local groups and grass roots organizations more
public participation in the management process.
Many of our dollars have been thrown to the wind because we do not
have the management to utilize our resources in the most effective
manner.
It is hoped that this bill will remedy the situation.
Water in the West is of the outmost importance and this bill seeks
to improve both the quality and quantity of our water supply by placing
management in local hands.
s. 2354
Background
This legislation will convey land from the BLM to the city of Twin
Falls for the purpose of a wastewater reuse project that would improve
aquatic ecosystems and help develop wildlife habitat in Auger Falls.
LEC is a cosponsor of S. 2354 sponsored by Senator Crapo.
Testimony will be given by Henri Bisson, Deputy Director of the
BLM.
The four parcels (roughly 165 acres) of BLM-owned lands are needed
to develop the park's habitat, because the pipe that will be used for
the wastewater reuse project cuts across the BLM lands within the
canyon floor.
Opening Statement
I would like thank the witnesses for joining us this afternoon.
I would also like to commend Senator Crapo and Congressman Mike
Simpson for their work on the Auger Falls Project.
For several years now, we have been working on this project in an
effort to build a community park and recreation center there.
We have worked to secure an estimated 1.7 million dollars for its
development.
The project is well underway and significant progress has been
made.
There have been improvements in the creation of upland and
wildlife habitat in the area.
Investigations have been done regarding recreational
opportunities for visitors.
And now, construction of the park has begun.
It is important to maintain funding for Auger Falls and to acquire
the land that is currently managed by the BLM.
The 165 acres impede current access that is required to maintain
the facilities.
Further construction of the wastewater reuse pipe cannot proceed
without the acquisition of these public lands.
The wastewater reuse plan will have multiple benefits for the
citizens of Twin Falls.
The treated water from the pipe system will help habitat
restoration.
It will provide new wetlands and improved ecosystems.
It will sustain the density and diversity of wildlife in one
of Idaho's scenic areas.
Finally, it will ultimately improve the quality of water in
the Snake River.
While this legislation will primarily benefit the citizens of Twin
Falls, there will also be a value-added to the general public.
It will provide recreational activities for many of Idaho's
visitors and it will demonstrate that wastewater can have many
Senator Crapo and I, as well as the people of Twin Falls, support
the acquisition of these public lands that are currently managed by the
BLM.
All of the appropriate environmental tests have indicated that the
construction of the pipe will pose no biological threats to surrounding
habitat and will have no significant ecological ramifications.
Furthermore, all activities relating to these lands fall under the
gamut of public purpose.
Establishing the reuse of reclaimed water will be paramount to our
success in preserving and enhancing the cultural and scenic heritage in
Auger Falls.
I look forward to working together with my fellow Senator from
Idaho to get this legislation enacted.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
I would also say I think the Department of the Interior in
this instance with you, Mr. Bisson, needed a map?
Mr. Bisson. Senator, I think we have a map already.
Senator Craig. OK, because if not, here is one.
Mr. Bisson. I have one in my briefing book.
Senator Craig. Very good. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Mr. Holtrop, a couple of questions for you, one in
particular. In your testimony on S. 3069, Senator Boxer's bill,
you raised an issue about a potential adverse impact of
wilderness designation on the commercial outfitters. Now, the
Wilderness Act gives you very significant discretion so as to
let commercial services go forward inside a wilderness area to
the extent necessary for activities which are proper for
realizing recreational or other wilderness purposes of the
area.
I think it would be helpful to have you clarify how adding
new lands to an existing wilderness area, even one that has
been the subject of litigation, is going to require the Forest
Service to limit or restrict additional outfitter activities in
a new area.
Mr. Holtrop. I appreciate the question and the opportunity
to clarify that.
We have a wilderness plan which has been established to
limit the number of outfitters and guides. It is not an issue
of whether outfitting and guiding is allowed in wilderness, but
we have a wilderness plan that limits the numbers. We also have
a recent court order that limits the number of outfitters in
the John Muir Wilderness.
What we wanted to bring to the committee's attention was
the potential--if this bill passes in its current state, we may
have that same number apply to a much larger acreage, and if we
can work with the committee for some language that would allow
us to continue to look at the areas that would be added to the
wilderness that already have outfitters and guides in them and
not have them subjected to the same numbers restricted in the
other part of the wilderness that already exists.
Senator Wyden. We will work with you on it. I think we are
going to need to have you amplify your views on that because it
seems clear that Senator Boxer and the sponsors want to be
sensitive to these concerns.
One question for you, Mr. Bisson, on again S. 3069. The
Forest Service has suggested transferring administrative
jurisdiction over several of the small parcels, the small BLM
parcels which are adjacent to the large Forest Service
wilderness areas from BLM to the Forest Service. Do you all
have any objections to that?
Mr. Bisson. We would not object to that, Senator.
Senator Wyden. OK.
One other question for you on the Utah bill, S. 3651, the
conveyance of lands for use by the Utah National Guard. You
testified in support of the bill but then noted that the lands
are already withdrawn from military use, and then you said,
well, why is it necessary to convey all this directly to the
State of Utah? As a general question, if you do not know why
the bill is necessary, tell us, first, why the Administration
is supporting it?
Mr. Bisson. I believe the Administration is supporting it
because we try to support the Defense Department in meeting its
needs for training and for military purposes. In this case,
that is the position we have taken. We think if the military
says they need it and they are going to use it for defense
purposes, then we are fine with it, sir.
Senator Wyden. OK.
Senator Barrasso, questions for this panel?
Senator Barrasso. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to start, if I can, with Mr. Wahlquist and
maybe Mr. Bisson may want to jump in as well. I am focused on
S. 2448, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation. We visited
in Senator Enzi's office. Senator Enzi now has some technical
corrections, which we thought would never be necessary because
we thought the bill itself was very clearly written. It called
for a direct payment.
In the testimony on the bill--I read the testimony, and I
think you used the word a direct payment ``scheme.'' I am
absolutely offended by the use of the word ``scheme.'' It
called for direct payment, and to call that a scheme against
the people of our great States, I think is an insult by the
Federal Government.
Several questions. One is I understand that there is a good
deal of internal disagreement among the Department of the
Interior, the Office of Management and Budget, the Solicitor's
Office regarding the interpretation of how these payments would
be made. Is that correct? It dealt with the word ``payment.''
Mr. Wahlquist. I think it is fair to say that there has
been some discussion of what the word ``payment'' would mean,
and that is the reason that I raised the question to the
Solicitor's Office about a year ago or a little more than a
year ago in terms of wanting clarification as to what the
amendments meant in this regard. We got an opinion from the
Solicitor's Office last December on this issue.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Bisson, when you take a look at a
program you are familiar with, payment in lieu of taxes.
``Payment'' in lieu of taxes. The Secretary of the Interior
shall make a payment for each fiscal year to each unit of
general local government. Are these payments not direct
distributions made in the form of reimbursement grants, direct
payments each year? I am just trying to figure why we are so
tied up with the word ``payment'' because it seems that in
other areas, the Government kind of understands the word and
does what one would think you should do with that word.
Mr. Bisson. As it regards the PILT payments, I think you
are accurate, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. So I do not know why this would be any
different. I do not know if you want to comment on that.
Mr. Bisson. I would rather not. I have not looked at the
bill.
Senator Barrasso. I am looking at Senator Tester. He is
getting ready.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bisson. I am not the witness on that bill.
Senator Wyden. This will surely produce a spirited
discussion.
Mr. Wahlquist. Would you like me to respond on that?
Senator Barrasso. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wahlquist. Certainly in the context of the word
``payment''--and there is a footnote in the Solicitor's opinion
on this issue that notes that in those areas where it is
basically revenue sharing, that there is a distinction there as
to how those were done, that under the Surface Mining Act,
these are quite distinct from that, and that the word
``payment'' as used can take many forms and that one of those
forms is grants.
Senator Barrasso. Actually I think what they came out with
is they did not say may be grant, but must be, which was also
surprise I think to people involved in this. It did not even
give you that opportunity to say may.
Mr. Wahlquist. I asked if we might do it that way. I was
told I had to do it that way.
Senator Barrasso. When I read the testimony that you give,
it almost sounds like that the main reason for the not wanting
to make the payments to the State is you want to hold onto the
money and make the interest.
Mr. Wahlquist. I think it is fair to say that the
Administration is very concerned about protecting the Treasury,
yes.
Senator Barrasso. In spite of what the law says, in spite
of what is clear to people involved and the fact that every
decision by the Federal Government to hold onto the money and
not give it to the States where it belongs, that denies the
States the ability to earn the interest from that money.
Mr. Wahlquist. I think it is fair to say that we also view
this as being very consistent with the law as it is currently
written, that this is the best interpretation of the law as it
is currently written.
Senator Barrasso. I would just take exception to that as
being the best interpretation of the law which seems very clear
to Members of the Senate. They wrote it intentionally that way,
and that is why this bill has been introduced.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could go on and on, but I do not
want to waste the panel's time. Thank you.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Just a quick comment and that is to thank
you, Mr. Bisson, for the support of the Administration on S.
3065, which we will be talking about more in the succeeding
panel, but I appreciate the work of the Administration in
helping us move forward with the protection, preservation and
the right balancing with respect to over 200,000 acres of
public lands in a very, very beautiful part of the State of
Colorado. So thank you very much.
Senator Wyden. Senator Tester, questions for this panel?
Senator Tester. Oh, I sure do. I also want to thank the
witnesses for their support of S. 2448 and S. 3085. Thank you
very much.
Any comment on that?
Mr. Wahlquist. I do not recall that I supported S. 2448.
Senator Tester. All right. Mr. Wahlquist, we have been here
before.
How much is owed to Montana from this account? Is it about
$52 million or $58 million, somewhere in that ball park?
Mr. Wahlquist. We are looking at the 8.1 times 7, which is
about $56 million.
Senator Tester. $56 million. It is fair to say that this is
money that is owed to Montana. Correct?
Mr. Wahlquist. It is obvious in the statute that they
concluded that this money was owed to Montana, yes.
Senator Tester. OK. Have you ever sold a pickup to somebody
and they have never paid you for it?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wahlquist. Yes, I have sold things I have not been paid
for.
Senator Tester. How does that make you feel? I mean, does
it make you feel you got shafted or?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wahlquist. In fact, I guess I would recognize, though,
that in this statute you are still not getting that money back.
That money is staying there in the AML fund, and instead,
Congress has decided to provide that money from the Treasury
rather than from the AML fund.
Senator Tester. You know, I mean, I cut up a pig for a guy
one time, and he told me that he was not going to pay me
because he had to use that money to buy shoes for his kids. So,
I mean, there is justification for it all over the place.
What I am saying is that it really does seem somewhat
ironic to me that the Administration would oppose this bill. I
have seen it happen when I was in State government with
counties too. It was not right then and it is not right now.
For us to have to dot every I and cross every T to make sure
the States get their money I think is as ridiculous as the guy
who did not pay you for the pickup. It really is. I would hope
that the Administration would take a look at this and see it
for what it is.
You hold onto the money because it collects interest that
goes into the general fund, and it helps the general balance.
But it is really not your money to do that with. It is the
States' money because the States need to do the same thing with
it. They need to utilize it.
I would just ask you to go back. You have opposed this from
the get-go, but I mean, I think it would be good if you went
back and re-evaluated your position and worked with us to get
these payments out sooner rather than later. Why the Solicitor
thinks it has to be done in grants and tells you it has to be
done in grants when I think the law was pretty explicitly clear
and both sides of the aisle see it the same way, but we have
been here before.
I need to ask some questions on, I believe it is, S. 3085,
the watershed bill.
Mr. Bisson. Senator, we have a Bureau of Reclamation
technical witness here who could answer questions that you may
have. If it is OK, I would like to ask her to sit up here.
Senator Tester. That would be marvelous.
Mr. Bisson. Her name is Avra Morgan.
Senator Tester. Avra, it is good to have you here.
I assume all the questions should be directed at her.
Right, Henri?
Mr. Bisson. Yes, Senator.
Senator Tester. How long have you worked for the
Department?
Ms. Morgan. I work for the Bureau of Reclamation and I have
worked there for 5 years.
Senator Tester. For 5 years, and you are still employed
currently?
Ms. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Tester. You plan on being employed for a while
longer. Right?
Ms. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Tester. OK, I just want to make sure because the
last one we had, the guy was a short-timer. He is a great guy,
but I mean, he was a short-timer. So that is good.
A couple things. The Administration supports the ideas laid
out in S. 3085. Would that be fair to say?
Ms. Morgan. The Administration supports the goals of S.
3085, but cannot support the bill primarily because of their
concerns that it would compete for funding with other efforts
ongoing by the Administration by Reclamation for similar types
of programs.
Senator Tester. Is there a similar type program to this
already on the books?
Ms. Morgan. The programs that we have that are similar to
this, I would say, are those included in the Water for America
initiative. The Water 2025 program, which you may be familiar
with, includes a challenge grant program for projects to
increase water use and efficiency, also system optimization
reviews under that same program.
Senator Tester. Mr. Chairman, my next line of questions,
since she brought up the Water for America initiative, is going
to take longer than 35 seconds. I am willing to come back or I
can just keep going.
Senator Wyden. What kind of time does the Senator need?
Senator Tester. Another 5 minutes.
Senator Craig. Please because these are the questions I
would be asking.
Senator Wyden. Why do we not take another 5 minutes?
Senator Tester. Sure, OK.
Do you know how much the budget request was for the Water
for America Initiative for 2009?
Ms. Morgan. For 2009, the request is $21.3 million for the
Water for America line item. For Bureau of Reclamation, just to
refine that a little bit, the total request for Water for
America activities $31.9 million.
Senator Tester. A $31.9 million total. How much of that
money is dedicated to programs that might overlap with this
bill?
Ms. Morgan. The Challenge Grant Program would be about $11
million.
Senator Tester. At $11 million. How much of that $11
million would be dedicated to local watershed groups to be able
to hire full-time coordinators?
Ms. Morgan. It is difficult to say. In general, the Water
2025 Challenge Grant Program provides grants to irrigation
districts, water districts, municipalities, and States.
However, we do encourage cooperation with stakeholders and some
of them have formed groups to administer the grants and to
implement the projects. But it is difficult to say whether they
will or not. We encourage it, but it does not always happen.
Senator Tester. So you really do not know.
Ms. Morgan. No.
Senator Tester. OK.
How much is dedicated for them to undertake projects?
Ms. Morgan. Most of the $11 million would be dedicated
toward that. There are certain----
Senator Tester. To local watershed groups.
Ms. Morgan. Oh, for local watershed groups. It is dedicated
for projects by irrigation and water districts, municipalities
who may be part of watershed groups or may form watershed
groups, but it is impossible to say whether they would be
applying.
Senator Tester. So how much was given to local watershed
groups for any reason? Do we know that?
Ms. Morgan. As I said, to be eligible to receive the funds,
you have to be a water management entity created under State
law, but that includes districts, irrigation districts,
conservancy districts, municipalities, and States.
Senator Tester. We are going to have a person come up and
testify that works with watershed groups in the next panel of
witnesses. I am going to ask him how available money is. He has
worked all over the State of Montana. I am going to ask him how
available this Government money is.
We had a wolf hearing last week, and I was told that the
Department of Agriculture had plenty of money for taking care
of ranchers that lost cattle or sheep to wolves when, in fact,
that was not the case at all.
I am here to tell you that--and you are a great lady--but
you do not know how much was allocated to hire full-time
coordinators. You do not know how much was dedicated to
undertake watershed projects. You do not know how much is
allocated for groups for any reason.
The fact is I think the Administration shot from the hip on
this one. They did not know what they were going to hit when
they shot, but they just wanted to oppose this because they
think they have got something that works that does not.
Would you like to comment on that?
Ms. Morgan. Yes. I did not mean to imply that the Challenge
Grant Program is directed at exactly the same purposes as your
bill. I do not believe that it is. I think what is different
from your bill is that it is aimed at forming watershed groups,
and that is not the purpose of the Challenge Grant Program.
Watershed groups sometimes participate in the Challenge Grant
Program, but it is not the primary purpose and I did not mean
to imply that it was.
Senator Tester. Thank you for that answer because why is
there a conflict then?
Ms. Morgan. The conflict is in terms of a concern about
competition for funding for our programs that have similar
goals. While they may not be exactly the same in terms of
implementation, there are similar goals directed at water
conservation and improving water quality.
Senator Tester. But totally different groups, totally
different designs. You have got collaborative efforts with
these watershed groups, totally collaborative. By the way, I
think collaboration is the key when it comes to water. You have
got to have everybody sitting at the table or you are going to
end up in court anyway.
Ms. Morgan. We agree with you and I would agree, as you
said, that your program is geared toward the formation of these
watershed groups, and we do not have a program that provides
funds to watershed groups to form coalitions.
Where the similarity lies is that in our program for
Challenge Grants, we do give extra points in the scoring
process when we are considering projects if they are put
forward by a group of stakeholders from a watershed. We also
have the Basins Studies Program as part of Water for America
that does rely on stakeholders in an entire watershed.
Senator Tester. I understand. Water is the most important
thing we have on this earth. If you do not have good water, you
are done. I mean, literally life cannot exist if you do not
have good water. I think by your own answers to these
questions, it tells me that we are not taking care of this
resource in a way we could, in a way that is most cost
effective, I might add, because you are bringing in local
governments with local cost share and local people on the
ground which tends to be much more cost effective than us
coming from the top-down. This is going to be more bottom-up
once we get this thing going.
I have got more questions, but I will wait until the
Senator from Idaho gets done.
Senator Wyden. Thank you.
The Senator from Idaho.
Senator Craig. I simply want to echo what Senator Tester
has been speaking to. While you talk about groups coming to
make application for, this approach is to bring those
stakeholders together to form the group to make the application
and to resolve and bring forth a united effort on a given
watershed or a given watershed problem.
So I agree with Senator Tester. I do not see the conflict.
In fact, I see the opportunity of facilitating collaboratively
in advance of, which brings down the conflict and oftentimes
brings the unity that makes the application that resolves the
problem. That is how I believe this is intended in the broad
sense.
We in the West are populating at unprecedented rates, and
watershed management and water quality management cooperatively
with the finite resources that all the publics have to deal
with this issue and especially here at the Federal level. It is
awfully important that we stay out of the conflict and use the
resource to amplify the quality of the water or improve the
watershed itself.
So no additional questions. I guess I can understand what
appears to be an expression of duplication when in our opinion
it is not or we do not believe it to be. We believe it to be
that which forms the group to make the application to utilize
the resource.
Do you wish to make a comment on that?
Ms. Morgan. My only comment would be that our programs tend
to focus on the implementation part, and while we encourage
stakeholders to collaborate to make the application, we have
focused our limited resources toward the actual projects in the
watershed. In our experience, we have seen that that sometimes
does result in them coming together and collaborating and
forming a group. So I think the distinction with the program
proposed here is that it is really focused on forming the
groups in the beginning as you have said.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Wyden. I thank my colleague.
We are going to excuse all of you, but I also want to
express--I hardly ever do it in this business--a thank you
because we have given you a lot of bills.
Does Senator Tester want another round?
Senator Tester. I will try not to take the whole 5 minutes.
Senator Wyden. All right. Before we excuse them, we will
let you have another 5.
Senator Tester. Thank you.
We will stay on S. 3085. Is the BOR willing to work with my
staff to iron out the administrative concerns of this bill
except for the money issues?
Ms. Morgan. Certainly we are.
Senator Tester. Is that something we could expect in the
next week, the next few weeks? When could we----
Ms. Morgan. We are happy to talk with your staff as soon as
they are available to talk about any technical issues.
Senator Tester. All right, good.
Now, you've said you cannot support this program. We have
got a number of watershed groups, I will ask Tom Hinz when he
comes up here next how many there are in the State because I am
sure he will know, and one of them is a group called the
Greater Gallatin Watershed Coalition, in a high growth area in
the State, that deals with water issues. They are having a heck
of a time because they cannot get grants under the Water for
America initiative. They are not eligible. This group consists
of, well, farmers, recreationalists, government officials,
business folks.
What can the BOR do to help these groups if a bill like
this is not passed?
Ms. Morgan. They could partner with an eligible entity
under the Challenge Grant Program. They could also participate
in our new Basins Studies Program which is kind of a broader
scope, but it is focused on studies. It is not focused on water
implementation projects like the Challenge Grant Program is.
Senator Tester. Right.
Ms. Morgan. We also have our Field Services Program which
has technical staff in our regional and area offices that are
focused on helping individual irrigators and local entities
with technical----
Senator Tester. You know what I would like to have you do,
if it would not be too much of a problem? If you could get me a
list of programs out there that would help this group
specifically, and then we might just see if any of that money
is available.
Ms. Morgan. OK.
Senator Tester. All right? Thank you very much. I want to
thank all the panelists. Thank you guys for being here.
Senator Wyden. I thank all of you.
I am going to turn this next panel over to Senator Salazar
to chair.
But before the Administration witnesses take off, I want to
express my thanks to all of you. I know we have given you
something like 17 bills just in the last week, but I think it
is a reflection of how much interest there is here in the
Senate. So we have appreciated the cooperation.
So the next panel will be chaired very ably by Senator
Salazar, and I will turn it over to him at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If we could have the next panel come up: Commissioner Jan
McCracken from Delta County and Tom Hinz, the Chairman of the
Greater Gallatin Watershed Council.
Let me, first of all, welcome this panel, and as I welcome
this panel, I also want to say thank you and state my
appreciation to David Brooks and all of our staff on this
committee, both Democratic and Republican, who make all of this
work possible.
I thank the witnesses, Commissioner Jan McCracken and Tom
Hinz, for being a part of this panel.
I am going to start out with my opening statement with
respect to the Dominguez-Escalante Canyon because I had
foregone my opportunity to do that at the very beginning of the
hearing. So I will do that at this point.
First, let me say that I know that Commissioner McCracken
has traveled a long way from Delta, Colorado to be here with us
in Washington, DC, and I appreciate her work on the Dominguez-
Escalante Canyon bill for the last several years. Her tenacity,
her willingness to find a way forward when things seemed to get
stuck, and also her work not only with her fellow commissioners
in Delta County, but also Montrose County and Mesa County as
well.
I also, to today's hearing, welcome her family who is
traveling with her from Colorado, Carrie Phiester and Lisa
Hawkins. Thank you both for being here.
We have been working on the Dominguez-Escalante Canyon
National Conservation Area and Wilderness for almost 2 years.
As Commissioner McCracken will tell the members of the
committee, these are some of the most spectacular desert
landscapes in the West, and they have a very rich history. You
get a sense of that history from the rock art on the canyon
walls, from the journals of the Dominguez-Escalante expedition
that came to the area in 1776, and from the ranching heritage
that is still alive and well now and will continue to be that
way.
The more than 210,000 acres that we are proposing to
designate as a national conservation area lie in Mesa,
Montrose, and Delta Counties on Colorado's western slope. They
are a favorite spot for hunters, anglers, hikers, off-road
vehicle users, cyclists, and all sorts of recreation.
At the center of the proposed national conservation area is
an area that is as rugged and primitive as you will find
anywhere in the West. We are proposing to designate these
65,000 acres which are currently managed to protect their back-
country characteristics as wilderness.
The bill I have introduced and which Congressman John
Salazar from the 3rd congressional district has introduced in
the House protects these signature Colorado landscapes but does
so in a way that protects water rights, private property
rights, and the traditional uses of the land.
Thanks to the leadership of people like Jan, the Delta,
Mesa, and Montrose County commissioners, the Mesa State
College, and Natural Resources and Land Policy Institute, the
Public Lands Partnership, the BLM, Senator Allard and Senator
Allard's staff, a wide range of stakeholders, and all the local
citizens who care so much about these lands, we have held a set
of public meetings over the last 2 years to discuss whether to
do this legislation, and if we are to do it, how to do it
right. We concluded that we can and will do it right.
The consensus findings of this public process is reflected
in this bill and incorporated in the substance of this bill.
The national conservation area and wilderness area we are
proposing to create continues to allow grazing, as it should,
protects private property rights, as it should, withdraws land
from mineral leasing, as it should, and allows for continued
invasive species control and fire prevention activities.
In addition, the bill incorporates water language
specifically crafted with our hand and the hand of the Colorado
River District, the State of Colorado, wilderness advocates,
and other stakeholders who have all had a hand in drafting this
bill. They all agree that the language in our bill protects
existing water rights and traditional water uses while
protecting the wilderness qualities of the land.
I am proud of all the work we have put into this bill over
the past 2 years. I am proud that this bill will protect some
of the most stunning desert landscapes on Colorado's western
slope for recreationists, hunters, and anglers to enjoy for
generations to come, while protecting the traditional uses of
these lands.
The bill has widespread support in the local communities
among stakeholders, and I ask that a set of letters* of support
be included in the hearing record. I will, therefore, order
that they be included in the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I look forward to continuing to work with this committee to
get this legislation completed as soon as possible.
I have a few pictures that I just want to share with
Senator Barrasso and with the members of this committee about
this area.
The first is a picture of rock art. It is rock art that is
found in the Dominguez Wilderness Area. You can see the very
beautiful depictions in that very old rock art.
The second picture is a picture of rafters on the Gunnison
River. The Gunnison River is one of the largest, most beautiful
rivers that we have in the State of Colorado.
The third is a picture of a waterfall on the Little
Dominguez Creek. As you can see, that waterfall in that very
pristine area is a very beautiful place of our Nation.
The final depiction that we have here is a map of the
national conservation area that also shows the 65,000 acres of
wilderness within the NCA.
I am very much looking forward to working with my
colleagues to getting this legislation done.
With that, what I would like to do is to call on the
Honorable Jan McCracken for her testimony. Commissioner
McCracken.
STATEMENT OF JAN MCCRACKEN, DELTA COUNTY, COMMISSIONER, DELTA,
CO
Ms. McCracken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for the honor of speaking with you about the
Dominguez and Escalante canyons area near my home in Delta,
Colorado.
My name is Jan McCracken. I am member of the Board of
County Commissioners and have been for approximately 6 years. I
am also a third generation resident in this area of which we
speak today.
I had an oral presentation ready, and basically Senator
Salazar took the words right out of my mouth, so I am not going
to reiterate all of those just for the sake of time.
But some of the things I do want to let you know is that
this was an effort that brought a diverse group of people
together, and we worked on it, very heated issues--I am sure
some of you are very familiar with that--because of the private
lands in there, because of some of the wilderness issues and
the water rights. We have worked with every entity, the BLM,
the Colorado River District, to ensure that those water rights
are so that they will not be jeopardized and to let the
property owners know that they can still carry on their
livestock business, their orchards, and not have to fight over
the water and how it is used.
So the only thing I guess that I can add to what Senator
Salazar said, we have worked hard on this for 2 years. It sat
on the table for well over 10 years, and I just felt like with
Senator Salazar and Senator Allard, we had a chance because of
their background in agriculture, that they understood the
importance of keeping the ag community intact down there, as
well as affording that beautiful area for many to enjoy with
many different varieties of interests.
We have worked hard with the motorists, the four-wheeling
clubs, to see what their interests are. The BLM has helped with
signing out trails.
What we did was we divided that whole area into five
different areas, stating what was to be primary use for each
area, whether it be the rafting down the river or whether it be
the four-wheeler club, or whether it would be the hikers or the
bicyclists or the horseback riders or the gold panners. We
tried to make sure that each group that we knew used that area
was brought to the table and hammered out our concerns. We
really feel like this is the best package. What you have before
you today is what, after 2 years of hard work, was created.
So I just basically want to thank you again for the
opportunity to discuss before you this beautiful place, an
important place, and a place that Delta County--the Delta
County commissioners support this legislation, as well as you
all do, and hope it will go forward as quickly as it possibly
can through this process. I just want you to know what I am
presenting today is something that I support and the Delta
County commissioners support and we support it with honor.
So thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCracken follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jan Mccracken, Delta County Commissioner,
Delta, CO
introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the honor
of speaking with you about the Dominguez and Escalante canyons area
near my home in Delta, Colorado.
My name is Jan McCracken and I am a member of the Board of County
Commissioners for Delta County, and have been for 6 years. I am also a
third generation resident of the lands that surround the Dominguez-
Escalante area.
Delta County is one of three western Colorado counties with land
proposed for protection under S. 3065, which will establish the
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and, within that NCA,
the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness, all to be maintained and directed by
the Bureau of Land Management.
It is my honor to speak with you, not just because of the nature of
this bill, but because of what it is built upon. It is built upon a
truly remarkable landscape--a landscape first journaled by the
Dominguez Escalante Expedition of 1776--a landscape that has been
maintained by an equally remarkable group of ranchers and fruit growers
for approximately 125 years. If not for their continued stewardship and
care for this landscape--which is surrounded by private working ranches
and orchards--it is possible that the Escalante Dominguez would not be
the jewel it is today and I would not be sitting before you today,
testifying for this bill to establish the Dominguez-Escalante National
Conservation Area.
The NCA and wilderness, based on original recommendations from the
BLM, will recognize and maintain the area's striking red canyon walls,
key wildlife habitats, perennial streams and waterfalls, ancient
artifacts and rock art, scenic cliffs along the Gunnison River, and
portions of the Old Spanish National Historic Trail. It will also
recognize the needs of agriculturalists who have helped preserve the
area and contributed to the surrounding economies for over a century.
The Delta County Commissioners endorse this legislation, and we
urge the committee to recommend approval to the Senate so that it can
be promptly passed by Congress. We have come to this position based on
our familiarity with the lands proposed for protection and the needs of
the agricultural community that has inhabited the area for a century.
Most Escalante/Dominguez residents are fellow members of the community
of Delta. Delta is where Escalante/Dominguez produce is sorted, packed
and transported. Delta Sale Barn is where local livestock business is
conducted and it is in the Delta schools that Escalante/Dominguez
children are educated. The whole Delta community benefits from the long
term commitment and sense of place exhibited by those who work on and
live in the Escalante/Dominquez area.
We also bring with this endorsement knowledge gained from
initiating and helping conduct a very extensive public review which
included discussion of the uses, values, and attitudes on these lands
and surrounding communities. Together with the commissioners from
neighboring Montrose and Mesa counties, the Mesa College Public Lands
Partnership (a diverse local citizen's group), and Colorado State
University Extension, we facilitated a series of public meetings.
Throughout this entire process, we collaborated with and worked closely
with the BLM. Final comments and input regarding wilderness,
agriculture, recreation, water rights, and local economics were all
based on this extensive effort and collaboration.
The national conservation area will recognize and ensure the
continued variety of recreation activities now found in the area,
including motorized recreation in Cactus Park and on the east side of
the Gunnison River, bicycling in several rugged and challenging
portions, horseback riding and packing throughout the area, river
rafting, unique opportunities for solitude in the wilderness portion,
and even gold panning along the river.
We have insisted, and the legislation ensures, that agricultural
uses continue in a thriving manner which not only benefits the
landscape and wildlife but also the ranchers and orchardists who have
lived and contributed to the Escalante-Dominguez area for generations.
In particular, livestock grazing and crop irrigation will continue so
as to maintain livelihoods of generations as well as the surrounding
communities of Delta, Montrose and Mesa Counties. Hunting and fishing
will continue throughout the area, managed under the existing authority
of Colorado's Division of Wildlife.
The legislation directs that a detailed management plan be prepared
within 3 years after the NCA and wilderness are designated. This will
provide another valuable opportunity for local citizens to help craft
the future of these unique and socially important lands.
The wilderness designation includes several custom features that
recognize some unique circumstances particular to this area. The
boundaries have been revised and refined carefully to keep all private
land outside the wilderness, thus avoiding conflicts with activities on
those private lands. The boundary is designed to follow a variety of
readily identifiable natural and human-made features, and to be
effectively manageable by the BLM.
The water protection provisions associated with the wilderness
designation have been painstakingly negotiated and crafted, with
endorsements from all three county commissions, the local and regional
water districts, and from the State of Colorado, which is responsible
for administering water rights in our state. The language creates a
unique state-Federal partnership for the protection of water flows
through the wilderness, while ensuring complete protection for existing
water rights and uses in and near the wilderness. The Gunnison River
itself is kept outside the wilderness because of the extensive water
diversion rights and uses it provides.
Overall, this legislation represents an effective western Colorado
solution, providing resource protection for the distinctive and
delicate beauty of the area, while maintaining diverse recreation
opportunities, protecting existing rights and uses, and ensuring that
local agriculture continues to thrive and utilize the land. It also
represents several years of collaborative education, citizen
involvement and the emergence of unlikely alliances. This collaboration
has taken a significant amount of work on the part of not only county
commissioners and Federal land management agency personnel, but local
residents working together to retain our social and economic western
culture while preserving the landscape of the Escalante/Dominguez. As
such, it is a package I am honored to support.
Thank you again for this time to discuss such a beautiful and
important place and this measure that will sustain it as such.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Commissioner
McCracken.
Tom Hinz, the Chairman of the Greater Gallatin Watershed
Council from Bozeman, Montana.
STATEMENT OF TOM HINZ, CHAIRMAN, GREAT GALLATIN WATERSHED
COUNCIL, BOZEMAN, MT
Mr. Hinz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. My name is Tom Hinz. I am Chairman of the Greater
Gallatin Watershed Council located in Bozeman, Montana. I am
here today representing GGWC in regard to S. 3085, the
Cooperative Watershed Management Act of 2008.
The Greater Gallatin Watershed where I live encompasses
1,000 square miles. Within that area, the Greater Gallatin
Watershed Council works to promote the conservation enhancement
of our area's water resources while supporting the traditions
of community, agriculture, and recreation. As part of this
broad mission, GGWC is responsible for developing and
implementing strategies to reduce total maximum daily loads,
TMDL's, for non-point source pollution in our streams.
GGWC and Montana's other watershed groups lack adequate
financial resources to ensure their long-term viability without
assistance from outside sources. All rely to varying degrees on
the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's grant
programs, grants from philanthropic organizations, funding from
some of Montana's 58 conservation districts, and private
donations from Montana citizens and others concerned about
water and watershed health.
Although the State's population is small, much of the
estimated 10 percent growth in population during the present
decade is occurring on critical watershed lands, especially
near our streams and rivers. GGWC and other Montana watershed
groups have consistently found that engaging the burgeoning
number of Montana residents in meaningful conservation dialog
is costly. Informing our citizens and engaging them in
safeguarding the environment that brought them to Montana
requires both money and a lot of time. Our time investment
includes not only project planing and design, but also the
sometimes slow business of involving affected stakeholders,
landowners, and the public at large.
Our watershed groups work with a voluntary, nonregulatory
framework. All have boards comprised of unpaid volunteers. Some
have coordinators that are conservation district employees.
Some raise funds to pay at least a part-time coordinator, and
some lack coordinators altogether. Montana's watershed groups
are a diverse mix of farmers and ranchers, mining interests,
recreationists, environmental organizations, tourism, timber
interests, government and others.
Although critics of a collaborative process claim that
involving diverse stakeholders is inefficient and ineffective,
Montana's conservation success stories of the past decade
clearly show that without inviting stakeholder participation,
long-term sustainable conservation simply does not happen.
Montana's watershed groups, given ample resources to organize
and to plan, are the most appropriate level of organization to
deliver water conservation on a landscape scale in our State.
Specifically we would like to add that we support the
voluntary versus regulatory direction of this bill.
Also, while using watershed groups to deliver this program,
we recommend that the focus of the legislation be water
conservation both in terms of water quality and water quantity.
We acknowledge and fully support the program's provision
for funding the creation, enlargement, and project development
aspects of the watershed group activity.
We realize that some see the CWMA as having significant
overlap with the Water for America initiative. To the contrary,
we see a very complementary fit between the two programs.
We have heard the Administration's concern about budget
constraints relative to the CWMA program. However, given the
status of water supplies in western States like Montana, we
believe that watershed conservation is appropriately among the
highest environmental priorities. We would urge Congress to
ensure that funding for the program does not come at the
expense of existing Department of the Interior programs which
could result in a net loss of conservation benefits in Montana.
Finally, fine-scale definition of watersheds eligible for
funding is necessary to ensure that CWMA funds can flow to the
local level at which all Montana watershed groups operate.
Funding projects at a scale such as the Missouri River
watershed in Montana is likely to cause ineffective
distribution of program funding across the State.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I would
be happy to answer any questions that I can.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Hinz, Chairman, Great Gallatin Watershed
Council, Bozeman, MT, on S. 3085
Chairman Wyden, Distinguished Subcommittee members, my name is Tom
Hinz. I'm chairman of the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council (GGWC)
located in Bozeman, Montana. I'm here today representing GGWC in regard
to S. 3085 titled the Cooperative Watershed Management Act of 2008. I
also wish to convey that there are a number of other watershed groups
in Montana that have or are in the process of sending letters that
support the intent of this legislation.
Since I received a call last Tuesday inquiring about GGWC's ability
to send someone on short notice to testify here today, I met with our
Board to discuss this possibility and to request their financial
support for my travel to Washington. I also talked with representatives
of our parent organization, the Montana Watershed Coordination Council,
other Montana watershed groups, the Montana Association of Conservation
Districts, and interested individuals in regard to the future of this
legislation. GGWC, in addition to its own pledge to send me here today,
has received a number of other commitments, some for as little as $50.
These modest pledges not only demonstrate the limited financial
resources of many of our watershed groups that can be put to this
purpose, but more importantly, clearly show the hope that many of our
groups have expressed for the future of this legislation as it evolves
and moves forward.
Montana is the fourth largest state in the nation, covering over
145,000 square miles. Our state's population is less a million people,
or roughly six people per square mile. Ours is not a wealthy state in
terms of personal income, ranking 41st in the nation. What makes
Montana rich though is that like our neighboring states, it has an
abundance of land, open space, clean air, and an adequate supply of
clean water. It's in regard to the latter that we hold some of our
greatest concerns for our state's future.
The Greater Gallatin Watershed where I live encompasses 1000 square
miles, an area roughly the size of the state of Rhode Island. Within
that area, the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council (GGWC) works to
promote the conservation and enhancement of our area's water resources
while supporting the traditions of community, agriculture, and
recreation. As part of this broad mission, GGWC is responsible for
developing and implementing a watershed restoration plan that includes
strategies to reduce Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for nonpoint
source pollutants in our streams.
The Greater Gallatin Watershed Council, like all watershed groups
in Montana, struggles to gather the necessary funds not only to staff
our organization but also to implement conservation projects beneficial
to our surface waters and groundwater supplies. Our parent
organization, the Montana Watershed Coordination Council (MWCC), is not
a lobbying organization but does provide a valuable forum for
information sharing, interaction, and support for Montana's watershed
conservation efforts.
GGWC and Montana's other watershed groups don't possess adequate
financial resources to ensure their long-term viability without
assistance from outside sources. All rely to varying degrees on: 1.)
the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's TMDL and Watershed
Assistance Grant programs; 2.) grants from philanthropic organizations;
3.) grants from some of Montana's 58 Conservation Districts; and 4.)
private donations from Montana citizens and others concerned about
water and watershed health.
GGWC and many of Montana's watershed groups were formed relatively
recently, typically in response to our rapidly developing landscape.
Although the state's population is small, much of the estimated 10
percent growth in population during the present decade is occurring on
critical watershed lands, especially near our watercourses. Montana's
Governor Brian Schweitzer issued a statement in March 2006 warning that
development along the state's rivers and streams that destroys
protective riparian areas is possibly the single most urgent ecosystem
threat facing Montana today.
GGWC and other Montana watershed groups have consistently found
that engaging the burgeoning number of new Montana residents in a
meaningful conservation dialog is costly. Informing our citizens and
engaging them in safeguarding the environment that brought them to
Montana in the first place requires both money and a lot of time. Our
time investment includes not only project planning and design, but also
the sometimes-slow business of involving affected stakeholders,
landowners, and the public-at-large in effective watershed conservation
projects.
Our collective watershed efforts, which are voluntary and
nonregulatory, are carried out with very limited financial resources.
Our watershed groups all have boards of dedicated, unpaid volunteers.
Some have coordinators that are Conservation District employees, some
raise funds on a continuing basis to pay at least a part-time
coordinator, and some lack coordinators altogether. Montana's watershed
groups are a diverse mix of livestock producers, farmers, mining
interests, recreationists, environmental organizations, tourism
interests, the real estate community, timber interests, and
representatives of Federal, tribal, state, and local governments.
Although critics of collaborative process claim that involving
stakeholders viewed as extractive may embolden such interests with even
greater opportunity to wreak havoc on the environment, our TMDL process
requires inviting all these stakeholders to the table. More
importantly, Montana's conservation success stories written in the past
decade by the Blackfoot Challenge, the O'Dell Creek Headwaters
Restoration partners, and many other collaborative conservation
partnerships clearly show that without all stakeholders at the table,
true long-term conservation simply doesn't happen. Yes, a few limited-
membership groups, agencies, or organizations may win some skirmishes,
but the progress of long-term, landscape-scale conservation is best
served when all those interested are welcome to participate.
I've solicited the views of many people prior to addressing you
today in regard to the current version of the Cooperative Watershed
Management Act of 2008 and how it would potentially affect the
functioning of Montana's watershed groups. Although primarily
representing the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council here today, I also
know that many if not most of our watershed partners around Montana
would echo many of the following viewpoints.
GGWC resoundingly supports establishing a Cooperative Watershed
Management program to complement local efforts to conserve water
resources across Montana. Collectively, our watershed groups, given
ample resources to organize and to plan, are without question the most
appropriate foundation for delivery of watershed conservation on a
landscape scale in Montana.
Specific to the language in the current version of the CWMA, GGWC
would like to make the following points:
1.) We support the voluntary versus regulatory direction of
the bill.
2.) While using watershed groups to deliver this program, we
recommend that the focus of the legislation be water
conservation, both in terms of water quality and quantity.
3.) We acknowledge and fully support the program's provision
for funding the creation, enlargement, and project development
aspects of watershed group activity. With CWMA funding
available to deliver the First Phase of the program, project
benefits resulting from the Second and Third Phases of the
program in our state will be significant. In Montana, project
funds are easier for our groups to raise than funding for
coordination and administration.
4.) We understand that some see the CWMA as having
significant overlap with The Water for America Initiative. We
fundamentally disagree and are encouraged by the very
complementary fit between the CWMA and the Water for America
Initiative.
5.) We have heard the Administration's concern about budget
constraints relative to the CWMA program. However, given the
status of water supplies in western states like Montana, we
believe that watershed conservation is appropriately among the
highest environmental priorities with funding decisions made
with this in mind. As the CWMA legislation moves forward, we
would urge Congress to ensure that funding for the program does
not come at the expense of existing Department of Interior
programs which could result in a net loss of conservation
program benefits in Montana.
6.) Eleven of the sixteen major watersheds of Montana are
part of the Missouri River watershed, or more accurately, the
Mississippi River Watershed, the largest watershed in North
America. Fine-scale definition of watersheds eligible for
funding is necessary to ensure that CWMA funds can flow to the
local level at which all Montana watershed groups operate.
Funding projects at a scale such as ``the Missouri River
watershed'' in Montana has the potential for inefficient and
ineffective distribution of program funding across the state.
In closing, I'd like to again express my appreciation for this
opportunity as well as to acknowledge the other conservation
organizations and conservation-minded individuals who have already
written in support of this forward-looking legislation. The Greater
Gallatin Watershed Council, the Montana Watershed Coordination Council,
and our 50-plus watershed organizations across Montana will continue to
engage others in gathering written comments over the coming weeks to
provide you with a collective view of this legislation from our state.
Thank you.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinz.
I think for purposes of how we proceed, we will take S.
3065 and ask whatever questions we want to Commissioner
McCracken, and then we will move to S. 3085. There may be some
questions. I am sure Senator Tester has some questions on that.
Beginning on S. 3065, Commissioner McCracken, the
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area is an area that
is 210,000-plus acres and encompasses parts of Delta and
Montrose and Mesa Counties. So there are three counties
involved. Are all three counties supportive of the legislation
and moving forward with this initiative?
Ms. McCracken. Yes, all three counties are. Originally Mesa
County, Montrose County, and Delta County commissioners got
together and decided how are we going to go forward with this.
Delta and Montrose Counties took the first initiative to go
forward with it, had several public meetings. Mesa County
jumped on board and did. I think in your package you have three
letters of recommendations and a resolution of support. If this
goes forward, these were the conditions we would like to see
addressed, and as far as I can tell, in the act, as I read it,
those all have been addressed.
Senator Salazar. Second, the Colorado River Water
Conservation District was very involved in crafting this water
language to make sure that water rights are, in fact, protected
both for their existing uses, as well as any conditional uses,
and making sure we were not interfering with the State's water
rights system of allocation. Are you comfortable with the water
language that is included in the legislation?
Ms. McCracken. Yes, I am because I felt like the experts
put it together. You know, it would not have been something
that I feel like a county commissioner would have been
qualified to ask be put in the language, but when that came up
as a concern, we asked the Colorado River District to look into
it and to protect those water rights. You know, what would
their language be? That language was adopted and is what I
read.
I understand that the wilderness boundary will never
include the Gunnison River. Whether the river floods or whether
it shrinks, the boundary will always be outside of the river
corridor.
Senator Salazar. Finally, you are a leader and a very
effective member of the Board of County Commissioners for Delta
County and a person whose roots go down into the soils of that
county for a long time. What does this mean to you?
Ms. McCracken. You know, as I grew up, this is an area that
we went and played. We had picnics. We saw the art that was
shown in your pictures, the cabins that are down there. My
father would tell stories of the old-timers there that would
jump from cliff to cliff basically on their horses or some of
the rustlers or the cattlemen that would get angry with each
other over water and shoot each other. So this was a way of
life for us.
It is a beautiful area that we can share with whomever
wishes to come and see a part of it. I do feel like what made
that valley, that canyon, so beautiful were the orchards down
there, as well as the agricultural production. Again, you have
written into the legislation to protect that, to make it an
area that we have always enjoyed. It is a beautiful area that
we could share with those who want to see it.
Again, I cannot express to you the work that went into this
and the collaborative effort through all of the stakeholders
through all of those meetings and time.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Commissioner McCracken. If you
are in agreement, I will include your entire statement that you
had prepared for this hearing into the record because you did
not go over it all, and I thought it was a very eloquent
statement. So I will incorporate that into the record here for
this hearing.
Ms. McCracken. Thank you for that. I just felt like you had
hit so many points that I was going to hit, and I know these
can be long days.
Senator Salazar. I think you said them better than I would
have said them. Thank you very much for being here.
Senator Barrasso or Senator Tester, do you have any
questions of Commissioner McCracken?
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I have no
questions of the panel, I have a few letters* I would like to
have included in the record: two on 2448, one from Senator Enzi
and one from John Carra, the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality; and then two dealing with Senate 3069,
one from the city of Los Angeles and one from the International
Mountain Bicycling Association, with your permission, Mr.
Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Salazar. They will be included in the record
without objection.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Commissioner McCracken, and you
are excused from the hearing.
Senator Tester. If I might, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
say to Jan McCracken I appreciate the work that you have done
to make this thing happen. I do not know if it is good or bad.
But to listen to you talk about it and bringing the groups
together is no small feat. Leadership at the local level is
critically important if we are going to get things like this to
go and getting people all on the same page. So I want to thank
you for that.
I also want to tell you that Senator Salazar oftentimes
beats people to the punch. So do not feel alone.
[Laughter.]
Ms. McCracken. I would not have stressed as much if I would
have known he was to say my speech earlier. So thank you all.
Senator Salazar. We are going to ask Mr. Hinz about pickup
trucks in just a few minutes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Commissioner
McCracken, and you are excused.
How will we move over to testimony regarding S. 3085 and I
would ask if members of the committee have any questions?
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Tom, I want to thank you for being here today. My staff
tells me that your trip started out in Bozeman, Montana, then
went to Salt Lake, then went to Atlanta, and then up here, and
all the while you had a seat mate that was a 10-month-old
child. We all know what that is like, so we want to thank you
for being here. I appreciate your testimony and I want to thank
all those folks who chipped in to get you here.
How many watershed groups are there in Montana? Do you know
that?
Mr. Hinz. The Montana Watershed Coordination Council, which
is an information-sharing forum that sort of coordinates the
work of the watershed groups from Montana, currently estimates
there are about 53 active watershed groups in Montana.
Senator Tester. Basically north, south, east, west, they
fairly well cover the State.
Mr. Hinz. They are all over the State, yes.
Senator Tester. Would it be fair to say that they are all
on shoestring budgets and, for the most part, underfunded? I
mean, everybody can claim they are underfunded, but truthfully,
do they have enough money to be effective and as effective as
they could be?
Mr. Hinz. Without question, they do not have enough money
to be as effective as they could be. There are more well-known
watershed groups like the Blackfoot Challenge, which I am sure
has been discussed in these proceedings earlier, who received
funding for a variety of management programs, but for the types
of work that we are talking about in S. 3085, I would say
without question all of our watershed groups do not have the
funding necessary to do the work described therein.
Senator Tester. Could you sum up for me fairly concisely
what the two or three biggest problems are for startup groups
like the Gallatin watershed group?
Mr. Hinz. The Greater Gallatin Watershed Council that I
chair and the other watershed groups in Montana I think have
three primary challenges. No. 1, providing sort of a continual
source of funding so that you can secure a coordinator and
someone to essentially staff the work of the volunteer board.
Pulling the stakeholders together from very diverse
interest groups, including sort of impacts associated with
development and other sectors of the watershed is a challenge
as well. But that is something that I think our watershed
groups do pretty well.
I think the other big challenge for these groups is getting
the funding to do projects. We need to come up with funding
from, as I mentioned earlier in my comments, private
foundations. In some cases I think pursuing projects because
there is funding available to do certain things that draws our
watershed groups in one direction or the other because that is
where the funding is available.
But for the work that is described in S. 3085, most of our
watershed groups have essentially no funding. Our group at our
annual meeting in January 2008 for general operating funds had
76 cents on account.
Senator Tester. These groups are basically focused on what
you talked about in your testimony, and that is water
conservation and quality?
Mr. Hinz. They are. I think that is based, I believe, on
the acknowledgement that whether you are in the business of
livestock production, irrigated agriculture, trout fishing,
duck hunting, or you are someone who just likes to recreate,
swim, enjoy the water, take your family to the river to have a
picnic, all those people depend on one thing and that is clean
water, as you mentioned earlier in your comments, Senator. So
that is where we focus because we know that if we can meet that
one need, the needs of all these groups will ultimately be
realized.
Senator Tester. Recently this bill was called a recipe for
disaster because it brought to the table folks who raise crops
and livestock. Could you talk a little bit about how important
it is to have these folks and all the folks at the table?
Mr. Hinz. The user groups, stakeholders that you just
mentioned, are without a doubt the primary conservationists in
Montana. If it was not for our farmers and ranchers, our
programs would be dead in the water because literally it is
farms and ranches that give us the foundation for doing stream
restoration work, wetland restoration work, riparian
conservation because they still hold land in large enough
pieces that they need to create a living for themselves there.
It is those large pieces that if we put them under conservation
easement or in some other conservation status--we have a
landowner or a family with whom we can work to do watershed
restoration projects to enhance water quality and to secure
surface water and groundwater supplies.
Senator Tester. In their testimony--and Avra Morgan pointed
this out in the questions--the Administration implied there was
overlap with the Water for America initiative, and that is one
of the reasons they oppose this bill.
Mr. Hinz. Yes.
Senator Tester. Do you see any overlap?
Mr. Hinz. For the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council, there
is none.
Senator Tester. No overlap?
Mr. Hinz. Zero. We do not qualify for those funds.
The one aspect of the Administration's testimony where I
have some experience is in the Challenge Grant Program through
Department of the Interior agencies, including the Fish and
Wildlife Service, BLM, and BOR, but specific to the BOR
funding, we have worked with BOR in funding some projects on
the mainstem Madison and Missouri River through a cooperative
program with PPL Montana. But for local watershed groups like
the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council, it is a nonissue. We do
not have access to any of those funds. None.
Senator Tester. When water issues, local water issues in
particular, get out of hand, it usually results in litigation.
It ends up in the courts. As the lady before talked about,
there were water fights a long time ago, and there continue to
be.
Do you see the role of these watershed groups minimizing
the kind of actions that could take place in court and kind of
settling this stuff before it gets to a boiling point?
Senator Salazar. Mr. Hinz, can you hold on just for 1
second?
Mr. Hinz. Yes.
Senator Tester. This is the last question.
Senator Salazar. I was going to say this is a very
important stream of questions. You obviously can stay doing
this for a long time. I am going to have to leave, though. So
you will gavel down. I am going to turn the gavel over to you.
Senator Tester. I will sit here and we are good to go.
Thank you, Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Tester [presiding]. Anyway, from a litigation
standpoint, do you see empowering these groups being able to--
--
Mr. Hinz. From the perspective of the Administration, the
comments that were conveyed earlier, I think it would be nice
to be able to say that through the collaborative work of these
watershed groups, there were significant savings in the offing
in terms of reduced court costs, lengthy legal battles, things
that move up through the court system from the State to the
Federal level, et cetera.
But I think the thing that we have to sell essentially that
is of value that would emanate from S. 3085 is the ability of
our watershed groups to conserve water. Whether we are going to
be more effective in saving the Federal Government money as a
result of preventing some litigation through the work of the
watershed groups, I guess I cannot respond to that because we
do not have examples of that, I do not think, in Montana yet
like in the Klamath Basin of Oregon, for example.
But one thing I am convinced is that our watershed groups
can do this work and bring these groups together, diverse
stakeholder groups together, and deliver these benefits that
conserve the water that Montanans need. I hope that we can do
that, and I believe that we can do that and generate
significant benefits for people who live in Montana, visit
Montana, or downstream users of Montana water.
Senator Tester. Very good. I want to thank you, Tom. I
appreciate your testimony. I appreciate your answers to the
questions.
Mr. Hinz. Thank you.
Senator Tester. I appreciate you coming all the way to
Washington, DC.
With that, this committee hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Joel Holtrop to Questions From Senator Barrasso
h.r. 3473
H.R. 3473, to provide for a land exchange with the city of
Bountiful, Utah, involving National Forest System land in the Wasatch-
Cache National Forest and to further land ownership consolidation in
that national forest, and for other purposes.
I note that there is a shooting range involved in this land
exchange and that you want language that indemnifies the Federal
Government from the hazardous wastes there.
Question 1. What steps has the Forest Service taken over the years
to manage this site and the hazardous wastes that you seem to be
concerned about?
Answer. This target range has been under special use permit for
many years and the Ranger District works with the permit holder, the
Lions Club, to address any management concerns. Lead from the shooting
activity is contained in the hillside within the target range. The
Forest Service is concerned, should there be a change in ownership,
about any potential liability the US government would incur for
removing lead from the site as this could be quite expensive.
Question 2. Should we take the agency's repeated attempts to divest
itself from shooting ranges on Federal land as a statement of
opposition to shooting guns on Federal land for target practice?
Answer. The Forest Service has demonstrated its continued support
for shooting sports on national forests. Attesting to that commitment,
the Deputy Chief recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with the National Shooting Sports Foundation along with forty other
organizations. This Federal Lands Hunting, Fishing and Shooting Sports
Roundtable MOU creates a cooperative framework to plan activities and
projects for mutual benefit.
National forests across the Nation host both dispersed shooting and
focused target shooting areas. In some cases, designated target ranges
are managed by the Forest Service and in other cases they are managed
under a Special Use Permit as is the case in Bountiful. In this case
the Lions' Club would like to make improvements at the range and hence
the City and Club would prefer to own the land.
The Forest Service does, at times, have a need to address issues
associated with designated target ranges such as safety, illegal
dumping and conflicts with other uses. These issues are sometimes more
acute when the target ranges are closer to urban settings.
Nevertheless, we actively support many of the goals of the shooting
and hunting community including access to Federal lands as well as
enhancing opportunities to hunt and engage in shooting sports. Together
we work with partners and communities to promote marksmanship and
hunter education in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
Question 3. Should we take this opposition to shooting as carrying
over to hunting on Federal lands?
Answer. The Forest Service welcomes and supports hunting on
national forests as demonstrated in our commitment to the
aforementioned MOU. We are actively implementing the August 2007
Executive Order, ``Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife
Conservation,'' In addition, individual forest plans address the
protection and enhancement of habitat for all game species thus
ensuring a wide range of hunting opportunities. We work closely with
state agencies responsible for regulating hunting.
s. 3069
Mr. Holtrop, the Committee has received a letter from the County of
Los Angeles on S. 3069 that indicates because of fire risk S. 3069
``could jeopardize life and property in urban interface communities . .
. by precluding the performance of common fire control, suppression,
and prevention activities.''
Question 4. Do you concur with the County that designating these
lands as wilderness will complicate the State of California and the
Forest Service's efforts to manage in these areas to control and reduce
the risk of wildland fires?
Answer. The lands that would be designated as wilderness in Los
Angeles County (Pleasant View Ridge and Magic Mountain) were not
recommended for wilderness in the 2005 Angeles National Forest Land
Management Plan. Wildland fire concerns in the wildland urban interface
and planned hazardous fuel reduction projects influenced the Forest
Plan decision. We share the County's concern about reducing the risk of
wildland fires and managing wildfires in this area. We stated in our
testimony for S. 3069 that we feel the continued use of the current
Forest Plan designation of Backcountry Non-motorized use for the
majority of this area remains appropriate.
We understand S. 3069 includes language for the control and
prevention of fire in the proposed wilderness, but we still have
concerns about the proposed boundaries. We would like to work with the
subcommittee and the bill's sponsors to adjust the boundaries to
address concerns about hazardous fuel reduction, wildfire management
and other competing uses.
My staff informs me that Senator Boxer and Representative McKeon
had a bill in the 109th Congress (S. 2567) that covered this same area
but only covered 39,680 acres.
Question 5. Can you tell me how the additional acres of wilderness
designation will impact the Forest Service as compared to that in S.
2567 from the 109th Congress?
Answer. S. 2567 introduced in the 109th Congress would have
designated approximately 39,680 acres called the ``Hoover Wilderness
Addition'' and 640 acres that would have been added to the Emigrant
Wilderness. Both of these are on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.
The Hoover Wilderness addition proposed in S. 2567 appears to be
the same as the Hoover West Addition proposed in S. 3069. There was no
area proposed in S. 2567 that is comparable to the approximately 24,000
acre Hoover East Wilderness addition proposed in S. 3069. The Emigrant
Wilderness addition in S. 2567 was 640 acres and is 251 acres on S.
3069. It appears now that the 640 acres was in error concerning its
size and that the area proposed under both bills is essentially the
same.
Our July 16, 2008 testimony for S. 3069 stated that we support
wilderness designation for the Hoover West and East Wilderness
Additions named in the Bill, but not for the Emigrant addition, because
of the complexity of managing snowmobile use and the Pacific Crest
Trail in that area.
Since our 2006 testimony, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest has
completed a forest plan amendment that allocates the area in the
proposed Emigrant addition for semi-primitive non-motorized recreation.
We oppose designation of this area as wilderness. We feel designating
these acres as wilderness would complicate management of the Emigrant
Wilderness, the Pacific Crest Trail and the Bridgeport Winter
Recreation Area in this vicinity. We prefer keeping the boundary of the
Emigrant Wilderness as it currently is on the clearly definable ridge,
rather than adding 251 acres. We understand this is a complex situation
and we remain willing to discuss this further with the Committee staff.
S. 3069 also designates additional acres of wilderness as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acres of
Name of Area in S. proposed Acres recommended USDA position
National Forest 3069 wilderness in S. for wilderness in (July 16, 2008
3069 Forest Plans testimony)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humboldt-Toyiabe Hoover West 76,982 See Sec 3 41,460 including Support
Wilderness (1)(A) of S. Area X; based on
Addition 3069. These current FS GIS
acres may maps of Forest
change slightly Plan
to reflect
mapping by
Forest Service
at request of
committee
--------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Humboldt-Toiyabe and Inyo Hoover East 23,840 based on Support with
Wilderness current FS GIS boundary
Addition maps of Forest adjustments
Plan
--------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Inyo Bighorn Wilderness 0 Support some
Addition portions with
boundary
adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Humboldt-Toiyabe Emigrant Wilderness 251 0 Do not support
Addition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inyo Owens River 15,247 acres 0 Support some
Headwaters/Ansel portions with
Adams Wilderness boundary
Addition adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inyo and BLM John Muir Addition 80,112 93 Support with
boundary and
jurisdiction
adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inyo and BLM White Mountains 223,517 120,008 Do not oppose
Wilderness with boundary
modifications to
address ``cherry
stem''
configurations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inyo and BLM Granite Mountain 35,564 0 Support with
Wilderness boundary and
jurisdiction
adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angeles Magic Mountain 13,709 0 Cannot support
Wilderness without boundary
adjustments and
corrections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angeles Pleasant View Ridge 28,424 0 Cannot support
Wilderness without boundary
adjustments and
corrections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 6. Of the forest acres designated as wilderness in this
bill how many were recommended for wilderness in the most recent forest
plan for this area?
Answer. Please see table above.
______
Responses of Henri Bisson to Questions From Senator Barrasso
s. 3069
Mr. Bisson, the Committee has received a letter from the County of
Los Angeles on S. 3069 that indicates because of fire risk S. 3069
``could jeopardize life and property in urban interface communities . .
. by precluding the performance of common fire control, suppression,
and prevention activities.''
Question 1. Do you concur with the County that designating these
lands as wilderness will complicate the State of California and the
BLM's efforts to manage in these areas to control and reduce the risk
of wildland fires?
Answer. While none of the proposed Wilderness areas to be managed
by the BLM are within Los Angeles County, we certainly understand the
concerns raised by the County. The Wilderness Act of 1964 provides
agencies the authority to allow necessary equipment to be used to
control fire in Wilderness Areas (Sec. 4(d)(1)). That authority is
specifically cited in section 4(e) of S. 3069.
The BLM's policy of fire management in designated wilderness is
very clear. The BLM has the authority, and uses that authority when
appropriate to use necessary motorized equipment in wilderness during
fires. The authority has been delegated to our State Directors to
ensure timely decisions are made by those BLM officials with direct
knowledge of the situation.
For example, the BLM generally allows the construction of bulldozer
lines in wilderness in cases where this is needed. Earlier this summer
the BLM pre-approved the use of bulldozers to build fire lines within
wilderness on the Piute Fire in Kern County, the Basin and Indian
Complex Fire (Big Sur) in Monterey County, and the Red Mountain Fire in
Mendocino County.
Question 2. My staff informs me that Senator Boxer and
Representative McKeon had a bill in the 109th Congress (S. 2567) that
covered this same area but only covered 39,680 acres.
Can you tell me how the additional acres of wilderness designation
will impact the BLM as compared to that in S. 2567 from the 109th
Congress?
Answer. S. 2567 did not include the designation of any BLM-managed
lands as Wilderness. However, approximately 24 miles of the Amargosa
River, which is managed by BLM, was proposed as an addition to the
National Wild and Scenic River System in that legislation, and we
supported its designation in testimony during the 109th Congress.
S. 3069 would designate approximately 57,000 acres of BLM-managed
land as wilderness. As we noted in our testimony we support, with minor
modifications, the designation of the Granite Mountain Wilderness to be
managed by BLM, and we defer to the Forest Service on the issue of
designation of the White Mountains and John Muir Additions. The BLM
believes these areas can be managed as wilderness with negligible
effect on current uses.
Question 3. Of the BLM acres designated as wilderness in this bill
how many were recommended for wilderness in the most recent forest plan
for this area?
Answer. The BLM reviewed Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) for
suitability for wilderness as part of the 1991 Wilderness Study Report
(unlike the Forest Service we do not re-review WSAs in subsequent land
use plans.) Both the Granite Mountain WSA and the White Mountains WSA
were recommended nonsuitable for wilderness. Since that report, there
have been a number of changes on the ground, including the acquisition
of private lands, and the reduced possibility of geothermal potential
in the area.
s. 3065
I know that there are roads within the recommended National
Conservation area and grazing infrastructure in both the National
Conservation area and the proposed Wilderness Area.
Question 4. If Congress were to add language to protect access to
these areas, would the BLM object to such protections for the ranchers
and the private property owner who is involved?
Answer. We would be happy to review any proposed language. We
believe that the language in the bill on grazing in section 7(b) (which
is consistent with other wilderness bills enacted over the last several
years) provides assurances on existing grazing improvements. Section
4(b)(2)(B) provides for motorized vehicles within the proposed NCA on
designated roads and trails.
Question 5. Of the BLM acres designated as wilderness in this bill,
how many were recommended for wilderness in the most recent forest plan
for this area?
Answer. In the January 7, 1993, Wilderness Study Report the BLM
recommended the vast majority of the entire Dominguez Canyon WSA as
suitable for designation, including all of the areas designated as
wilderness by S. 3065.
Question 6. Of the BLM acres designated as National Conservation
Area in this bill, how many were recommended for National Conservation
areas status in the most recent forest plan for this area?
Answer. The BLM does not have the authority to consider
Congressional designations of potential NCAs during its land use
planning process.
h.r. 3651
Some have suggested that the need for the transfer remains unclear,
and that the land is already withdrawn and used for the purposes that
would be permitted under the terms of the bill.
Question 7. From your experience and what you know about the
requirements and processes of the BLM, would the transfer of this land
help expedite the Utah National Guard's ability to utilize these lands
as part of Camp Williams?
Answer. As you note, these lands are already withdrawn for the use
of the Army, therefore the BLM is no longer involved in the management
of these lands. We are not familiar with the specific needs of the Utah
National Guard.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
The Colorado Mountain Club,
Golden, CO, July 14, 2008.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Salazar, On behalf of our more than 9,000 members
across the state, Colorado Mountain Club (CMC) would like to express
our sincere appreciation for your efforts to create the Dominguez-
Escalante National Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness.
Thank you for introducing legislation to protect this unique and
remarkable place.
The Dominguez Canyons area provides critical undisturbed, arid,
lower elevation wildlife habitat and quiet recreation opportunities.
With protection, this area will serve to enhance and sustain
biodiversity and recreation within the state of Colorado. CMC members,
volunteers and staff have explored, hiked, and inventoried the proposed
lands.
Our members appreciate the rugged, colorful, quiet landscape of the
Dominguez Canyons area, and look forward to enjoying the permanent
protection that wilderness designation will offer this special
landscape. We join with the many endorsers of your legislation to urge
you to continue working diligently to pass it through Congress this
year.
Again, thank you for your work in protecting Dominguez Canyons.
With warm regards,
Bryan Martin,
Assistant Director of Conservation.
______
Colorado Environmental Coalition,
Denver, CO, July 14, 2008.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Salazar, On behalf of our more than 100 coalition
partners and the 150,000 Coloradans they collectively represent across
the state, Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) would like to express
our sincere appreciation for your efforts to create the Dominguez-
Escalante National Conservation Area and Wilderness. Thank you for
introducing legislation to protect these beautiful lands.
Colorado Environmental Coalition has been actively supporting the
designation of Dominguez Canyons Wilderness from the very beginning of
the Bureau of Land Management's wilderness process starting in 1976.
CEC staff, members and volunteers have explored, hiked, and inventoried
the proposed lands. We have met with interested parties, from ranchers
to county commissioners to land management agencies to local citizens.
Our members look forward to enjoying the permanent protection that
wilderness designation will offer these special landscapes. We join
with the many endorsers of your legislation to urge you to continue
working diligently to pass it through Congress this year.
Again, thank you for your leadership in protecting Dominguez
Canyons.
With warm regards,
Elise Jones,
Executive Director.
______
Western Colorado Congress,
Grand Junction, CO, July 14, 2008.
Dear Senator Salazar, On behalf of the 3100 members of Western
Colorado Congress, we thank you for introducing the Dominguez Escalante
National Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness Area Act (S.
3065). We appreciate your support and your leadership on this important
public lands legislation.
We strongly endorse this legislation and urge Congress to promptly
pass it into law this year, as do a diverse variety of conservation
organizations, businesses, local governments, recreation groups, and
individual citizens.
Many of our members have visited the area and cherish its quiet,
rugged, colorful beauty. It provides undisturbed wildlife habitat rare
in such an arid landscape, along with wonderful recreation
opportunities.
Thank you again for your good work on this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Bill Grant,
WCC Public Lands Committee.
______
Sheep Mountain Alliance,
Telluride, CO, July 14, 2008.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Salazar, I write to you on behalf of the nearly 400
members of Sheep Mountain Alliance in San Miguel County. As neighbors
of the Dominguez-Escalante region, we thank you for introducing
Dominguez-Escalante national conservation area and wilderness
legislation. We appreciate your support for protecting this unique and
remarkable place.
We strongly endorse this legislation and urge Congress to promptly
pass it into law this year, as do a diverse variety of conservation
organizations, businesses, local governments, recreation groups, and
individual citizens.
Many of our members have visited the area and cherish its quiet,
rugged, colorful beauty. It provides undisturbed wildlife habitat rare
in such an arid landscape, along with wonderful recreation
opportunities.
Thank you again for your good work on this important legislation as
well as many other conservation efforts throughout Colorado.
Sincerely,
Hilary White,
Director.
______
Western Resource Advocates,
Boulder, CO.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area & Wilderness bill
Dear Senator Salazar, Thank you for your continued leadership on
Federal public lands issues in Congress. As a former resident of
Montrose, I've spent more days than I can count kicking around the
Uncompahgre Plateau, one of the most unique and stunning landscapes in
Colorado or anywhere else.
In the early 1990s, I worked with Jim Martin and Senator Wirth to
achieve Federal protection for Roubideau Canyon the Tabeguache area on
the Plateau. The far-sighted decisions to protect those two natural
areas have been good for the local economy, the State and the nation. I
took my two sons backpacking in Upper Roubideau several years ago, and
enjoyed an Easter adventure to Tabeguache in 2007.
Dominguez-Escalante encompasses some of the most outstanding
country on the Uncompahgre Plateau. Visitors to Escalante Breaks near
the crest of the Plateau can easily imagine that they are fur trappers
or Ute warriors in the early 1800s. Dominguez Canyon would take months
to properly explore. It ranks with Utah's renowned National Parks as
some of the most stunning redrocks wilderness in the southwest. On the
first day of my 2007 trip, we observed ancient petroglyphs on rock
walls and desert bighorn sheep in a side canyon while exploring around
camp at dusk. On our way back to the trailhead, we saw a large herd of
desert bighorns highlighted against the sky, on the rim of the canyon
above the Colorado River. It was a magical moment that I won't forget,
in the company of a wildlife biologist who had helped reintroduce the
sheep to Colorado.
Western Resource Advocates strongly supports the new legislation to
afford balanced protections for these outstanding landscapes. In
addition to the broad appreciation and support of current citizens,
future generations will greatly appreciate your visionary leadership on
these and other public lands and natural resources issues.
Very sincerely yours,
Mike Chiropolos,
Lands Program Director.
______
Great Old Broads for Wilderness,
Durango, CO.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Salazar, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, with over
400 Colorado members, thanks you for introducing Dominguez-Escalante
national conservation area and wilderness legislation. We appreciate
your support for protecting this unique and remarkable place.
We strongly endorse this legislation and urge Congress to promptly
pass it into law this year, as do a diverse variety of conservation
organizations, businesses, local governments, recreation groups, and
individual citizens.
Many of our members have visited the area and cherish its quiet,
rugged, colorful beauty. It provides undisturbed wildlife habitat rare
in such an arid landscape, along with wonderful recreation
opportunities.
Thank you again for your good work on this important legislation.
Broadly,
Veronica Egan,
Executive Director.
______
Board of Delta County Commissioners,
State of Colorado,
Delta, CO, April 7, 2008.
Dear Senator Wayne Allard and Senator Ken Salazar, Public meetings
have been held throughout Delta, Mesa, and Montrose Counties over the
past 2 years collecting information regarding the proposed Dominquez
Escalante National Conservation and Wilderness Study Area.
The Dominguez Escalante National Conservation and Wilderness Study
Area and adjacent Federal lands include a variety of unique ecological,
geological, scenic, historic, economic and wildlife components.
This area and adjacent Federal lands provide extensive
opportunities for ranching, economic, educational and recreational
activities, and are publicly used for hunting, hiking, camping,
fishing, recreation, motorized use, and for solitude.
The public land within and surrounding the proposed Dominguez
Escalante National Conservation Area contributes to the economic
viability of surrounding landowners, communities and offers unique
geological, paleontological, scientific, educational, and recreational
resources.
On behalf of our agricultural constituents and many other
interested members of our communities we offer the following conditions
to be incorporated in the form of actual language into potential
legislation for the Dominguez Escalante National Conservation Area/
Wilderness Area designation.
Express disclaimer of any reserved Federal water rights.
Express disclaimer of any effect on existing water rights.
Express disclaimer of any effect of the Wilderness Area or
the National Conservation Area on water quality standards in or
upstream of the Federal land designations.
Express exclusion of the Gunnison River from the wilderness
irrespective of the river's flow at any time (i.e., no one can
claim that because the Gunnison River in a particularly high
water year rose into the wilderness, that the river is
therefore part of the wilderness).
Gunnison River included in the National Conservation Area.
Express disclaimer of any Federal water right on the
Gunnison River for the National Conservation Area.
Reliance on Colorado's instream flow program for any water
rights required by the wilderness: the Federal Government will
file for an instream flow right at roughly the same time as the
State files for its instream flow right, but the Federal
Government are expressly prohibited frompursuing adjudication
of the Federal right unless the State fails to adjudicate or
enforce its right. This allows the Federal Government to
maintain a priority date for a potential water right equal that
of the State's.
The State and Federal Government will enter into a joint
operating agreement for the enforcement of the State's instream
flow right.
Access to private properties within or adjacent to the
designated lands will be granted to the private property owner
where necessary and physically possible.
Livestock grazing practices shall continue as traditionally
provided for under law.
Sound range management science protocol shall be used for
grazing management practicies, plans and implementation.
Range improvement projects, including but not limited to
vegetation modification, fencing, noxious weed control, and
water development may occur when conducted under the
supervision of the appropriate public conservation agency.
The use of motorized vehicles for livestock grazing and
range management purposes can occur as provided for the
appropriate management plan.
Our collective belief through the public scoping meetings with key
stake holders over the past 2 years the above provisions are in the
best interest of both the natural resources and the agricultural and
greater communities associated with a Dominguez Escalante National
Conservation Area with a wilderness component. It is our resolve to
include the provisions, in the form of identical or similar language,
to potential designation legislation on behalf of our agricultural and
general constituencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Wayne E. Wolf,
Chairman.
R. Olen Lund,
Vice Chairman.
Lela J. McCracken,
Commissioner.
______
Board of County Commissioners,
Montrose County,
Montrose, CO, April 28, 2008.
Dear Senator Ken Salazar and Senator Wayne Allard: After a great
deal of public input from the general public and specific meetings with
interest groups it appears to the Montrose County Commissioners that a
workable proposal for the Dominguez Escalante National Conservation and
Wilderness Study Area (NCA/WA) has been achieved. The proposal provides
a vehicle for improving on the sound multiple use management of the
area. The land will be managed for both public use and the protection
of natural values.
The existing proposed boundaries include the Gunnison River as it
flows through the NCA. Keeping the river inside the NCA and outside of
any designated wilderness provides the Bureau of Land Management
positive assistance in managing the recreation use already occurring on
the Gunnison River. Water language has been developed which will have
no impact to existing water rights and allow no federal reserve water
right as a result of any forthcoming legislation.
The Montrose County Commissioners are not in favor of extending the
existing WSA to include additional lands. We are satisfied with the
wilderness recommendation on Dominguez Canyon wich was made after
significant study and public input by the Bureau of Land Management and
is included in their 1989 Resource management plan.
With respect to grazing operations, an NCA would not hinder current
operations. Grazing in the current WSA is and will continue to be
controlled by current law. Off road issues will be studied carefully
with the public in an NCA management Plan after designation.
The Montrose County Commissioners support the designation of the
Dominguez/Escalante National Conservation Area and the Dominguez
Wilderness Study Area for Wilderness.
Sincerely,
Gary J. Ellis,
Chairman.
William N. Patterson,
Vice Chariman.
Allan J. Belt,
Commissioner.
______
Statement of Michael Rogers, Policy & Programs Director, Wild
Connections, Florissant, CO, and John Stansfield, Coordinator, Central
Colorado Wilderness Coalition, Monument, CO
On behalf of both Wild Connections and the Central Colorado
Wilderness Coalition, we want to express our support and thank you for
introducing legislation to establish the Dominguez-Escalante National
Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. We appreciate your
support for protecting this unique and remarkable place.
We strongly endorse this legislation and urge Congress to promptly
pass it into law this year, as do a diverse variety of conservation
organizations, businesses, local governments, recreation groups, and
individual citizens.
The Dominguez-Escalante area provides cherished quiet recreational
opportunities amidst a rugged, colorful landscape. More important, it
provides critical protections to undisturbed, arid, lower elevation
wildlife habitat. These protections serve to enhance and sustain the
biodiversity within the region, and within our broader, beautiful state
of Colorado.
Thank you again for your good work on this important legislation.
Wild Connections, a science-based advocacy organization, works to
identify, protect and restore lands of the Upper Arkansas and South
Platte watersheds to ensure the survival of native species and
ecological richness. We focus on designing, implementing and defending
the Wild Connections Conservation Plan--a vision for the future of this
region that embodies the results of many years of roadless area
mapping, citizen input and conservation science.
The Central Colorado Wilderness Coalition works to protect, defend,
and preserve for future generations the ecological integrity of wild
places in the Pikes Peak Region of central Colorado and promote
permanent protection of these areas through wilderness designation.
______
Statement of Hon. Michael B. Enzi, U.S. Senator From Wyoming, on S.
2448
I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member
Barrasso for holding this hearing. I would also like to thank Chairman
Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici for allowing this hearing to move
forward and for their efforts to reform the Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
Trust Fund. I have been intimately involved in this issue during my
entire service in the Senate. I cosponsored numerous bills on AML, and
I authored the final version of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006 signed by President Bush into law on
December 20, 2006.
When the bill was signed into law, it was clear to me and my
colleagues who worked on this measure what the legislation would do. It
would lead to the cleanup of more abandoned mines. It would fix the
health benefits for orphan miners so that they would not have to worry
about healthcare in years to come. Most importantly to my state of
Wyoming, it would return the money to certified states that had been
hijacked by the Federal Government for other purposes, and it would fix
that problem for money that would be owed to certified states in future
years--without any strings attached.
When I received word that there may be some ``conflicting''
interpretation of Congressional intent, I met with the Office of
Surface Mining and the Office of Management and Budget to make clear to
them what Congress meant when we passed that bill. I assumed, that,
because I had drafted the language that would eventually become law, I
could explain to those agencies what Congress meant. Unfortunately, I
was wrong.
Only in Washington can someone tell you what your words mean and
think that it makes complete sense. Only in a bureaucracy as large as
ours can a nameless staffer explain to the Members of Congress who
drafted the law just what Congress ``really'' meant with their own
words.
In this case, the Administration has taken the word ``payment''
from our legislation to mean ``complicated grant process.'' Instead of
receiving funding through the ``no strings attached'' process that was
anticipated, the States are forced to jump through hoops that were
never intended by Congress. This should be changed.
While I am pleased that States are receiving more money than ever
before, I am disappointed by this process. After the misinterpretation
was released by the Administration, I asked its own lawyers to provide
me with language that would do what we initially intended--provide the
states money with no strings attached. The bill before your Committee
is that product and I hope you can support this effort.
I look forward to working with you on this matter and look forward
to passing this legislation so that the Administration will finally
follow the intentions of Congress.
______
County of Los Angeles,
Legislative Office,
Washington, DC, July 11, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, 304
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Ranking Minority Member.
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Minority Member Domenici: On
behalf of the County of Los Angeles, I am writing regarding the Eastern
Sierra and San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act (S. 3069/H.R. 6156), which
would designate 472,804 acres of public land in California as
wilderness, including 42,000 acres of land in Los Angeles County as
wilderness.
The County of Los Angeles is the most populous County in the Nation
with 10.3 million people and a land area covering over 4,000 square
miles. The wilderness areas in Los Angeles County designated by S.
3069/H.R. 6156 are located within the Angeles National Forest, which
comprises over 655,000 total acres, most of which are within the
County. The Los Angeles County Fire Department, in conjunction with the
California Department of Forestry, is responsible for fire control and
suppression activities in and around the Angeles National Forest,
consisting of hazardous fuels reduction to minimize wildland fire
hazards and protecting the region's natural resources from adverse
impacts.
The Angeles National Forest is unique compared with most national
forest, park, recreation and wilderness areas in that it is located in
the middle of a high-density urban environment. The Angeles National
Forest also features elevations ranging from 1,200 to 10,000 feet, over
1,000 miles of roads, almost 700 miles of trails, while having one of
the highest usage rates in the entire national forest system.
For all of the attributes of the Angeles National Forest, it is
also one of the most fire-prone areas in California. The 42,000 acres
of land that S. 3069/H.R. 6156 would designate as wilderness are
adjacent to several populated communities such as Newhall, Canyon
Country, Acton, Ague Dulce, and Juniper Hills. Many of these areas have
regularly experienced wildfires in recent years, and each of these
communities (with the exception of Juniper Hills) was impacted to some
extent by the series of fires which occurred in October 2007.
The perpetually dry Southern California climate, rugged terrain,
varying elevations, and unpredictable winds present numerous challenges
in the control and prevention of wildfires in the Angeles National
Forest and its surrounding communities. This wildland-urban interface
area has always been a major focus for fire management in Los Angeles
County. In addition, the increase in fine fuel volume created by last
year's high rainfall has resulted in forming continuous fine fuel beds
throughout the desert, valleys, and foothill areas of the Angeles,
which promote quick ignition, rapid rates of spread and large fire
development. Passage of S. 3069/H.R. 6156 as currently drafted could
impede the ability of local fire departments and other public safety
personnel in responding to fires and other emergencies in a timely and
effective manner. In addition, the legislation could jeopardize life
and property in urban interface communities such as those adjacent to
the Angeles National Forest by precluding the performance of common
fire control, suppression, and prevention activities.
The County of Los Angeles is available to provide technical
assistance with this legislation as appropriate.
Sincerely,
P. Michael Freeman,
Fire Chief, Forester & Fire Warden.
______
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Boulder, CO, July 14, 2008.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
& Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy & Natural Resources.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: On behalf of the
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and the millions of
mountain bicyclists in California, I write over our objections to H.R.
6156 and S. 3069 that seek to establish new Wilderness areas in
California's eastern Sierra.
The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA), founded in
1988, leads state, national and worldwide mountain bicycling
communities through a network of 80,000 supporters and more than 700
affiliated clubs, including 60 in California. Nationwide, IMBA members
and affiliated clubs contribute over 1 million hours of volunteer trail
and advocacy work annually and are some of the best partners to
Federal, state, and local land managers. California has more mountain
bicyclists than any other state. It is estimated that between 3 and 5
million people ride mountain bikes on dirt surface trails in the state.
IMBA applauds the movement to preserve wild areas in California.
However, we are in favor of land management designations that allow for
a flexible range of sustainable, human powered outdoor recreation,
while preserving the environment for future generations. Unfortunately,
Federal Wilderness is an excessively restrictive land use designation
that significantly limits recreation activity, specifically human
powered bicycle travel. Although we are in agreement with the majority
of the proposed Wilderness sections in H.R. 6156 and S. 3069, we
disagree with two proposed areas, mainly the Owens River Headwaters and
Pleasant View Ridge land parcels. The proposed Wilderness designation
will significantly restrict current and potential recreation
opportunity for thousands of mountain bicyclists in the state. At a
time when the state's population is approaching 37 million people, and
mountain bike recreation is on the increase, we think it is
shortsighted public policy to further limit areas for quality outdoor
recreation.
In the case of the Owens River Headwaters, our objection to
Wilderness is based on the following:
The proposed parcel is directly adjacent to the well-known
Mammoth Lakes Resort community that draws millions of visitors
from the Los Angeles basin seeking numerous forms of outdoor
recreation including mountain biking. Unfortunately, mountain
bike trails are limited to the privately run Mammoth Mountain
ski area that requires a significant trail use fee. There is a
paucity of quality mountain bike trail opportunities on
surrounding public lands, thereby eliminating the opportunity
for pristine backcountry riding that cyclists cherish. Mountain
bikers are now crammed into the over crowded ski slopes of
Mammoth Mountain.
Local trail advocates realize that trail systems are a vital
part of their recreation offerings and have visions for future
trail expansion on adjacent public lands. The Owens Headwaters
is a prime area for future development of non-motorized,
sustainable trails for bicyclists and hikers. The Wilderness
designation will prevent bicycles in this area.
A developed trail system will provide much needed high
quality recreation opportunity for thousands of cyclist, and
will have the added benefit of becoming an economic driver for
Mammoth Lakes and the surrounding mountain communities. It is
well documented that when there are high quality, sustainable
trail systems, mountain bikers will come from far and near to
enjoy them.
In the case of the Pleasant View proposed Wilderness, our
objections to Wilderness are based on the following:
The proposed area currently has significant riding
opportunities for mountain bikers. Specifically trail 10W02
from Devils Punchbowl to Buckhorn is a popular ride for
cyclists. The same is the case for trail 9W02 that runs from
South Fork Campground to the highway near Little Jimmy.
These two trails provide what we in the mountain biking
community call ``epic'' rides, because of the natural beauty,
the length of the ride, the opportunity for a loop trail
experience (if a short stretch of road is used for a connector)
and the unique opportunity to ride from desert like
surroundings to beautiful mountain top vistas.
The area is in close proximity to the large population
center of Los Angeles Basin, and the communities of Pasadena,
Burbank, Mission Hills and San Fernando. There are thousands of
cyclists in this region and many of them frequent the area in
question. The population of new cyclists is growing; hence
preserving a range of cycling opportunities is vitally
important.
The US Forest Service conducted a lengthy planning process
with extensive public review and input for the three southern
California Forests. Pleasant View was a part of this process
and it was not designated for Wilderness consideration in the
final Forest Plan. Mountain biking is allowed in the Forest
Plan; however, that would change if Wilderness were
established.
IMBA has a strong interest in preserving wild areas in California.
Cyclists enjoy riding on sustainable trails in beautiful pristine
environments. We are supportive of land designations that preserve
these special places and at the same time allow for low impact
recreation. We look forward to continued discussion with Wilderness
proponents to arrive at mutually supportive solutions.
Sincerely,
Tom Ward,
California Policy Director.
______
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Boulder, CO, July 16, 2008.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy
& Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on
Energy & Natural Resources.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: The International Mountain
Bicycling Association (IMBA) endorses Senator Salazar's proposal to
bring lasting protection to Dominguez Canyon, reflected in the
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon
Wilderness Area Act (S. 3065). IMBA strongly supports protection of
these public lands and urges the committee to pass this bill.
Mountain bicyclists value public lands for the same reasons as
other quiet, low-impact users. We cherish the freedom, solitude, clean
air, clean water and natural landscapes that bring us closer to nature.
IMBA highly values its partnership with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). In 1990, IMBA participated in the first BLM mountain
bike seminar in Durango, Colorado. From this meeting and others, the
1993 National Mountain Bike Strategy was released, and in 2002, with
IMBA's input, the BLM published the National Mountain Bicycling
Strategic Action Plan. The volunteer National Mountain Bike Patrol
works to inform, assist, and educate mountain bikers and other trail
users on BLM lands across the country.
Locally, the Colorado Plateau Mountain Bike Trail Association
(COPMOBA) is a dedicated steward on many trails in the BLM's Grand
Junction Field Office. This IMBA-affiliated club donates hundreds of
volunteer hours each year to the construction and maintenance of
sustainable shared-use BLM trails.
The Grand Junction area has long been an important resource for the
mountain bicycling community. Highly valued trails like the Tabeguache
Trail have been used for many years by bicyclists appreciative of their
unique scenic vistas and challenging terrain. Mountain bicyclists
cherish these trails and the experiences they provide.
Foremost, IMBA appreciates the efforts to protect lands surrounding
traditional mountain biking trails with a National Conservation Area
(NCA) designation. It is vitally important to our community that any
proposal protects the land and allows for continued bicycling. Senator
Salazar's plan preserves our quiet, low-impact, human-powered activity
with bicycle-friendly designations like the NCA and through boundary
adjustments that do not disturb bicycle access to important routes in
the immediate vicinity.
IMBA also supports the approximately 65,000-acre Wilderness
designation nested within the larger NCA. Federal land management
agencies do not allow bicycling in Wilderness, but this particular area
does not affect existing bicycle access.
IMBA looks forward to working with your office to promote this
model legislation.
Sincerely,
Jenn Dice,
Government Affairs Director.
______
Statement of the National Wildlife Federation, the New Mexico Wildlife
Federation, Albuquerque Wildlife Federation, Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership, the Mule Deer Foundation--New Mexico, New
Mexico Council of Trout Unlimited, Sportsmen Concerned For New Mecico
Mora Sportsmen & Concerned Citizens, Southwest Consolidated Sportsmen,
Backcountry Horsemen of New Mexico--Lower Rio Grande Chapter,
Republicans for Environmental Protection--New Mexico Chapter, Common
Ground United, Audubon New Mexico, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance,
Southwest Environmental Center, Oil & Gas Accountability Project,
Brotherhood Of Locomotive Engineer & Trainmen--Division 446 Of Belen &
Gallup New Mexico, on H.R. 2632
On behalf of The National Wildlife Federation, The New Mexico
Wildlife Federation, The Albuquerque Wildlife Federation, The Theodore
Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, The Mule Deer Foundation--New
Mexico, New Mexico Council of Trout Unlimited, Sportsmen Concerned for
New Mexico, Mora Sportsmen & Concerned Sportsmen, Southwest
Consolidated Sportsmen, Backcountry Horsemen of New Mexico--Lower Rio
Grande Chapter, Republicans for Environmental Protection--New Mexico
Chapter, Common Ground United, Audubon New Mexico, New Mexico
Wilderness Alliance, Southwest Environmental Center, Oil & Gas
Accountability Project, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers &
Trainmen--Division 446 of Belen & Gallup, New Mexico we are pleased to
submit this testimony in strong support of the Sabinoso Wilderness Act
of 2007, H.R. 2632. Our organizations collectively represent thousands
of individual New Mexicans, state and local governments, businesses,
organizations, ranchers, hunters, anglers, hikers, horsemen,
conservationists, and others.
The designation of Sabinoso Wilderness will continue New Mexico's
proud wilderness tradition of working to set aside special areas of our
public lands for present and future generations--a tradition that
started with Aldo Leopold. His efforts helped establish the Gila
Wilderness in southwestern New Mexico in the 1920s--and that tradition
continues with this legislation today.
We would like to thank Representative Tom Udall for his leadership
and commitment to wilderness protection and for the hard work that has
gone into developing this legislation. Representative Udall and his
staff has worked in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders and
listened to the concerns and recommendations from all interested
parties to develop this popular proposal.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State Director Linda Rundell and
her staff deserve praise for their leadership and willingness to work
with the conservation community, hunting interests, local elected
officials, ranchers and others in the region. Much of the area has been
managed by the Bureau of Land Management as a Wilderness Study Area
(WSA) for more than two decades.
broad support for the sabinoso wilderness
H.R. 2632 is a positive, vital piece of legislation that enjoys
broad support from adjacent landowners, sportsmen, conservation groups,
individuals, businesses, local governments, Governor Richardson and
other state officials. Resolutions supporting the designation of the
Sabinoso Wilderness were passed by the New Mexico State House of
Representatives, San Miguel County Commission, Village of Wagon Mound,
and the Town of Springer. Further, the Las Vegas San Miguel County
Economic Development Corporation supports the area's protection.
wilderness values and qualities
As Representative Tom Udall said when introducing this bill ``New
Mexico is filled with extraordinary landscapes, complex and diverse
ecosystems, and some of the most breathtaking natural environments in
the country. One of New Mexico's most precious gems is the Sabinoso
Wilderness Study Area...''
Because of Sabinoso's unique characteristics and qualities it needs
to be included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. At
nearly 20,000 acres in size, Sabinoso rises 1,110 feet from the
surrounding plains and is dominated by majestic sandstone cliffs and
rugged canyons packed with dense vegetation and wildlife. The scenery
within the areas is exceptional and noted for its sharp contrast of
densely vegetated mesas bisected by colorful canyons and breathtaking
vistas of the eastern plains. The dominant feature in the wilderness
study area (WSA) is the 1,000-foot-deep Canon Largo, which connects to
the Canadian River just outside the area's boundary. Sabinoso mesas are
dominated by pinyon-juniper trees and scattered patches of Ponderosa
pines. Cottonwood and willow trees form part of the riparian vegetation
in the canyon bottoms, and understory plants include wavyleaf and
shinnery oak, mountain mahogany, netleaf hackberry, skunkbush sumac,
and Navajo tea. Grasses in the unit include black, sideoats, blue, and
hairy grama; galleta; little bluestem, wolftail; Indian rice grass; and
vine mesquite.
The area's diverse habitats, from forests to cliffs to riparian
bottomlands, support a wide variety of birds including red-tailed hawk,
American kestrel, western scrub-jay, pine siskin, juniper titmouse,
morning dove, lesser goldfinch, savannah sparrow, chipping sparrow,
mountain chickadee, Bewick's wren, broad-tailed hummingbird, white-
breasted nuthatch, pinion jay, Virginia warbler, hairy woodpecker,
white-throated swift, gray flycatcher, bushtit, and turkey vulture.
Wildlife in the area also includes coyote, bobcat, gray fox, ground
squirrel, racer snake, and a variety of frogs and butterflies in the
riparian zones. Sportsmen prize the Sabinoso because it contains mule
deer, quail, and turkey in a wild, remote scenic landscape. In
addition, Sabinoso offers outstanding recreational opportunities for
hiking, horseback riding, and landscape photography.
While cultural resources in the area are unknown due to limited
surveys, archaeological records of northeastern New Mexico suggests
that a large number of cultural resources are very likely based on the
its unique location and habitat.
Clearly, the Sabinoso Wilderness is eminently qualified for
designation under the Wilderness Act and will serve as an outstanding,
diverse addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. If
designated, the area will be the first wilderness area in the
northeastern plains of New Mexico and one of only a handful of
wilderness areas managed by the BLM in our state. The Sabinoso
Wilderness also would be only the second new Wilderness Area designated
in New Mexico in twenty years. Currently, only about 2 percent of New
Mexico is designated Wilderness which is low compared to other western
states. For example, 5 percent of Colorado is designated as Wilderness,
14 percent of California and 6 percent of Arizona.
additional benefits
New Mexico's varied wildlands enhance our quality of life and
create a powerful incentive for attracting new businesses to our state
by creating the kind of environment where people want to live, work and
recreate with their families. Over the last several years numerous
studies have shown designated Wilderness can be an economic boon to
local communities. From 1970 to 2000, real per capita income in
isolated rural counties with designated Wilderness grew more than sixty
percent faster than in isolated counties without these protected public
lands. Polls have shown that residents of counties with designated
Wilderness acknowledge the presence of Wilderness as an important
reason they moved to that county while long-term residents cite
Wilderness as one of the reasons they stay. Recent economic data from
New Mexico and other Rocky Mountain states indicate that many firms
decided to located or stay in the West because of protected public
lands and the benefits they offer their employees i.e. scenic
amenities, wildlife-based recreation, etc. Wilderness and other
protected public lands can clearly be an economic asset and play a part
in sustainable local economies.
conclusion
We look forward to working with Members of the Committee and their
staff, on this important legislation that will enhance New Mexico's
``Land of Enchantment''.
______
Statement of Alan Van Vliet, resident of Bend, OR and Vice President of
Development and Construction for JELD-WEN Communities, on S. 3088
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
receiving my testimony. My name is Alan VanVliet, and I am a longtime
resident of Central Oregon. I am submitting this testimony on behalf of
JELD-WEN Communities in strong support of S. 3088, the Oregon Badlands
Wilderness Act of 2008. I currently serve as the Vice President of
Construction and Development for JELD-WEN Communities, and have worked
with JELD-WEN Communities (formerly Eagle Crest, Inc) for over 13
years.
JELD-WEN Communities, which develops destination resorts such as
Eagle Crest and Brasada Ranch in Central Oregon, is one of the largest
employers in Central Oregon, employing over 300 people in 2008.
At JELD-WEN Communities, we have long recognized that the beautiful
and expansive natural setting where our developments are located is a
substantive factor in our success. The first time people visit Central
Oregon, they are immediately drawn to the crisp desert air and the wide
open landscape. As a company that strives to attract new visitors and
residents to the area, we see a definite economic value in protecting
wild places like the Badlands. But in addition to this benefit, the
presence of protected natural areas can help our business attract and
retain employees and set ourselves apart from our competition.
Located just 15 miles from the city of Bend, the Oregon Badlands
represents an invaluable opportunity to protect a piece of the high
desert landscape that defines our region. It provides key trails for
the quieter recreational activities such as hiking, horseback riding
and camping, and is a place where we can find solace and a moment away
from our busy lives. This is something that I believe the majority of
Central Oregonians value about the place we live--the ability to escape
our everyday lives and find solitude in the natural world. It is an
opportunity that I hope future generations will have, and I thank
Senator Wyden for taking action to protect this special area.
I urge Senator Smith and the rest of the Subcommittee on Public
Lands and Forests to work with Chairman Wyden and move quickly to
protect the Oregon Badlands as Wilderness. Thank you again for your
consideration of this important bill.
______
Statement of the Blueribbon Coalition, Pocatello, ID,
on H.R. 6156 and S. 3069
The BlueRibbon Coalition (BlueRibbon) is an Idaho non-profit
corporation with over 10,000 individual, business and organizational
members representing approximately 600,000 individuals nationwide.
BlueRibbon members use motorized and non-motorized means, including
Off-Highway Vehicles (OHV), snowmobiles, horses, mountain bikes and
hiking, to access and enjoy recreating upon state and federally managed
lands throughout the United States, including lands throughout the
National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Our
members will be directly affected by the provisions contained in the
Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act (HR 6156 and
S. 3069).
BlueRibbon has served as a leading advocate for reasonable
management of recreation in our National Forests and other public
lands. This role has included partnering with academia, conservation
groups, and the agencies in cutting edge research and supporting
education projects to address excessively loud OHV exhaust noise. In
addition, we promote a strong trail ethic and work with groups such as
Tread Lightly! and the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation
Council to champion responsible OHV use. We also have an active
litigation presence, most often in support of the Forest Service and
other Federal land managers.
BlueRibbon is a grassroots, user-supported non-profit organization
that has achieved a surprising prominence in notable lawsuits and
numerous other National Forest and BLM specific recreation initiatives
throughout the country.
We would like to first point out that there is no impending threat
which warrants legislative action. No vast commercial clear-cut logging
operations or mining ventures are contemplated for these lands. The
U.S. Forest Service is currently managing the lands in such a manner
that protects the wildlife, watershed and other natural resources,
while allowing an appropriate and sustainable mix of human recreational
activities.
The prominent human use of these lands is for recreation. The areas
proposed for Wilderness contain numerous roads and trails used by
Americans who choose or are required to use motorized vehicles to view
and enjoy these lands. Many popular snowmobile areas also exist within
the proposed Wilderness boundaries. In addition to motorized uses,
mountain bike enthusiasts also utilize roads and trails within the
proposed Wilderness boundaries. All of these mechanized forms of
transport are prohibited in designated Wilderness.
If Congress wishes to bring greater emphasis to conserving and
protecting these natural resources, we believe an alternative other
than Wilderness should at least be discussed. As you know, there are
numerous changes or alternative proposals currently being considered
that would accommodate the existing recreational uses. This fact
indicates that Wilderness designation may not be the best option. It is
BlueRibbon's contention that the best method to protect the undeveloped
character of this remarkable area is with an alternative Congressional
designation, such as the ``Backcountry Recreation Alternative''
proposed by our organization (info at http://www.sharetrails.org/
backcountry), a National Recreation Area (NRA) or a National
Conservation Area (NCA).
In the event that Congress will further consider the bill as
written, we suggest the following changes be made:
``buffer zone'' language should be included
The Wilderness boundaries come very close to developed areas and
even areas with an urban character yet the legislation does not include
``buffer zone'' language. It seems entirely appropriate that the bill
include similar language to that included in the 1994 Desert Protection
Act:
The Congress does not intend for the designation of
wilderness areas of this Act to lead to the creation of
protective perimeters or buffer zones around any such
wilderness area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses
can be seen or heard from areas within a wilderness shall not,
of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the boundary
of the wilderness area.
``cherry-stem'' language should be included in the final bill
The initial draft of the legislation does not include adequate
language to ensure continued motorized uses of the designated ``cherry-
stemmed'' routes within the Wilderness boundaries. History has proved
that simply cherry-stemming a route into a Wilderness area does not
ensure that preservationist groups and Wilderness activists will not
successfully close them through other means such as litigation.
proposed language
Continued motorized and mechanized access along these routes
shall be deemed a valid use of the affected lands. The
Secretary shall exercise applicable authority to maintain and
make these routes reasonably available to continuing public
access, and any administrative decisions regulating access
along these routes shall not have the effect of prohibiting or
unduly restricting travel by any presently authorized vehicle
type.
wilderness boundaries along designated routes (cherry-stems)
The Wilderness boundaries are shown in many cases adjacent to
routes proposed for designation by the Inyo National Forest Travel
Plan. There should be language in the bill to ensure an adequate
Wilderness boundary setback of at least 150 feet on each side of
existing Inyo National Forest Travel Plan designated routes to ensure
ample room for repair and maintenance in the event of a major washout
of a designated route.
``willing seller'' provisions should be included
The bill does not include provisions requiring that private
property must be acquired from a willing seller. Most Wilderness bills
include a requirement that the seller must be willing.
the furnace creek road
OHV groups, as well as all other stakeholders, participated in a
series of ``compromise and consensus'' meetings regarding the
management of the Inyo National Forest in the latter part of the
1980's. The ``Wilderness Issues Workgroup'' consisted of stakeholders
ranging from cattlemen to OHV users to Wilderness activists. The result
was a management plan that had full ``consensus'' with all the
stakeholders. OHV users agreed to road and trail closures because the
final agreement was a ``workable compromise.'' What made the compromise
workable is that all of the stakeholders, including the Wilderness
activists, agreed that important recreational roads, such as the
Furnace Creek Road, were to remain open.
Fast forward a couple of decades, and we have radical anti-
recreation groups suing to have the Furnace Creek Road closed, and the
key compromises made years ago are being formally tossed in the trash
bin. This is a major flaw in this legislation that must be addressed.
The Furnace Creek Road extending through Tres Plumas Meadow should be
cherry-stemmed out of the Wilderness.
specific modifications to wilderness additions contained in the bill
(Map names below correspond to those available for view at http://
www.Congress.org/congressorg/webreturn/?url=http://mckeon.house.gov URL
as of July 15, 2008)
White Mountains Wilderness Map
The road toward Granite Meadow from Eva Belle mine road, Forest
Service road number UN2666, was discussed in the Collaborative Access
Team meetings and agreement was reached to keep it open, but it has
been omitted in H.R. 6156. This road should be cherry-stemmed out of
the Wilderness
The existing road between Iron Creek and Wildhorse Creek was
eliminated on the White Mountains Wilderness Map. This road is used
during deer season to allow dispersed hunting. This is the only access
to the mouth of the canyon on Wildhorse Creek. This road was not
discussed during the Collaborative Access Team meetings because it is
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, but it should be cherry-
stemmed to allow motorized access.
The road extending east from Highway 266 to Indian Garden Creek
should be extended on the north fork to at least through section 14 to
the eastern boundary of Section 15 and the south fork of the road
should extend to the old ruins in Section 23. The south fork of the
road to the Buck Mine should be cherry-stemmed out of the Wilderness
area through Sections 30 and 36 for access to hunting and rockhounding.
This road was not discussed during the Collaborative Access Team
meetings because it is entirely administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.
Ancient Bristlecone Forest Map
Section 33 at the northern end of Mollie Gibson Mine Road should be
excluded from within the boundaries of the Ancient Bristlecone Forest.
This section has a large number of roads, old mines, and other non-
natural features. This area is important for hunting and sightseeing,
and is used by many local and southern California jeep clubs for
backcountry touring. This area also has many opportunities for gem and
mineral collecting. This area was reviewed by the Collaborative Access
Team, who concluded that all the routes in Section 33 are acceptable
for inclusion in the Inyo National Forest Travel Management System.
Section 22 as indicated on the attached map includes a small
section of an important motorized trail that was accepted for inclusion
on the Inyo National Forest Travel Management Plan by the Collaborative
Access Team. There has been some discussion as to whether motorized
backcountry trails will be permitted within the boundaries of the
Ancient Bristlecone Forest. If this is the case, the Ancient
Bristlecone Forest Boundary should be modified to ensure the continued
use of the designated road in Section 22. See attachment 4.
Very small detached Wilderness Designations
The Wilderness boundaries currently indicated on the White
Mountains Wilderness Map associated with H.R. 6156 include a number of
very small detached Wilderness areas that should be eliminated. They
really serve no useful purpose and contain very few Wilderness
qualities, if any. The following areas should be considered for
elimination from the proposed Wilderness boundaries in the White
Mountains:
Near Piute Mine in Section 14, northeast of Chalfant Valley
Near Queen Dicks in Section 23
Along the Inyo/Mono County line north of Gunter Canyon
East of very short cherry-stem on the road along Cottonwood
Creek in Sections 32 and 33.
The tiny portion of detached Wilderness area in Mono County east,
where Cottonwood Creek Road crosses the Inyo County line, should be
eliminated. It is very small, there are no significant Wilderness
values within this area, and it would be hard to administer.
Elimination of this small detached Wilderness would prevent the road
along Cottonwood Creek from having to go through a very short cherry-
stem.
The portions of the White Mountains Wilderness Study Area
designated by SEC. 109 of the California Desert Protection Act of 1994
that are not designated by H.R. 6156 should be released from further
Wilderness review.
Popular snowmobile areas should be removed from the proposed
Wilderness:
Laurel Canyon
McGee Mtn.
Rickey Peak
Crater Crest
Eagle Peak
______
Statement of Steven A. Brink, Vice President, Public Resources,
California Forestry Association, Sacramento, CA
The California Forestry Association offers the following comments
regarding the Boxer/McKeon proposed wilderness additions to California.
The California Forestry Association (CFA) is a trade association whose
members consist of forest products producers, forest landowners and
natural resource professionals committed to environmentally sound
policies, responsible forestry, and sustainable use of natural
resources. Our members process over 90 percent of the wood products
manufactured in the state of California.
Though CFA is a trade association concerned about wood supply, we
are also very concerned about the sustainability of all of California's
natural resources. Essentially every one of the proposed wilderness
additions (totaling 430,671 acres) will reduce or eliminate the ability
of land management agencies to protect property and public safety when
wildfires hit. All of these proposed wilderness areas are in fire-
adapted ecosystems. We all lose without the ability to manage
vegetation and have access to suppress wildfires as needed to protect
life, property and watershed values and function. No ability to manage
natural resources is what additional wilderness would mean for
California.
Many of these proposed wilderness additions are: 1) adjacent to
existing roads, 2) near communities, 3) in the proximity of private
land and associated improvements, 4) support vegetation crucial to
watershed function and production of clean water, and, thus are
barriers to good land management rather than attributes.
California has just burned over 880,000 acres since June 21.
California had unhealthy air (2-10 times the Federal air standards
several days) due to these unnecessarily large wildfires. Large
portions of watersheds are now denuded and exposed to dramatic
increases in sediment rates for the coming winters. Most, if not all,
of the burned National Forest lands will type convert to brush fields
due to the Forest Service's inability to salvage, rehabilitate and
restore burned landscapes. Suppression costs are in the hundreds of
millions of dollars. Without management of the overly dense vegetative
conditions, these massive wildfires will continue to burn up more and
more of California at faster rates into the future.
Adding more wilderness additions is not the answer for California.
Having access to and the opportunity for our land management agencies
to address forest health so that we can have stands resistant to
insects, disease, and wildfire is the answer.
Please squelch any new wilderness additions for California.
______
Statement of John Sterling, Executive Director of the Outdoor Industry
Conservation Alliance, and resident of Bend, OR, on S. 3088
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to offer testimony in support of S. 3088, the Oregon
Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008. I am Executive Director of the Outdoor
Industry Conservation Alliance, and a native Oregonian. I have lived
full-time in Bend since 2002.
The Conservation Alliance is a group of roughly 160 outdoor
companies that work together to support conservation projects
throughout North America. Our members are scattered throughout the US
and Canada, but our offices are based in Bend, OR. Our goal is to help
secure protection for wild lands and rivers for their habitat and
recreational values. Our member companies make the outdoor clothing,
footwear, backpacks, tents, and other gear that people use to fully
enjoy the outdoors. We recognize that protected public lands play an
important role in the economic health of the outdoor industry. Our
member companies' customers need these lands and waters to participate
in the outdoor activities--hiking, backpacking, climbing, paddling,
birding, and skiing--that are so important to them.
The Conservation Alliance strongly supports Wilderness designation
for The Badlands because such protection represents an investment in
the future of outdoor recreation in Central Oregon. Central Oregon is
widely known for its spectacular outdoor recreation opportunities. We
are fortunate to have the Three Sisters Wilderness, a world-class
mountain landscape, in our backyard. We also benefit from the Wild and
Scenic Deschutes River that flows just south of downtown Bend. And we
have the Newberry Crater National Monument, recognized for its
remarkable volcanic features. Each of these protected public lands and
waters contributes to the high quality of life that has made Bend such
a successful and prosperous community. These places also contribute to
a wide range of outdoor recreation opportunities in the area.
Protecting The Badlands as Wilderness would add a unique landscape
to the collection of special wild places in Central Oregon. The
Badlands offers a special experience to people who enjoy exploring
ancient junipers, Native American rock art, and striking geologic
formations. A mere 15 miles east of Bend, The Badlands offers
recreational opportunities year-round, particularly for people who
prefer not to recreate in deep snow and Winter conditions.
As our economy shifts away from traditional industries--mining,
wood products, farming and ranching--Oregon's economic growth is coming
from the diverse sectors of finance, high-tech, real estate, business
services, and outdoor recreation. A recent study by the Sonoran
Institute (Prosperity in the 21st Century West, July 2004) concludes
that:
Wilderness, National Parks, National Monuments, and other
protected public lands, set aside for their wild
characteristics, can and do play an important role in
stimulating economic growth--and the more protected, the
better.
My home town of Bend is a perfect example of how protected public
lands support economic growth in the West. Bend is among the fastest
growing towns in the country. Though that growth poses challenges for
the community, it is irrefutable that Bend's economy is vibrant and
strong. People move to Bend for a variety of reasons that all revolve
around quality of life. Bend is surrounded by BLM and Forest Service
lands that provide open space and recreation opportunities, and serve
as a de facto urban growth boundary.
People flock to Bend to take advantage of the outdoor opportunities
provided by these public lands. These lands play a key role in
attracting tourists and new residents alike. Prosperity in the 21st
Century West found that, from 1970 to 2000, the closer a county was to
protected lands, the faster that county's economy grew. Central to this
study's findings is that the economy of the rural West has changed.
Communities once dependent on logging, mining, and ranching have built
new prosperity on high-end service industries like finance,
engineering, real estate and business services. The reason for this
shift is that people are increasingly moving to rural Western towns for
their unique landscapes and quality of life. Many of these new arrivals
are retirees with investment income. They buy or build new homes, eat
out, and appreciate the public lands in their new communities.
The study concludes that rural communities benefit substantially
from protected public lands--Wilderness, National Parks, National
Monuments--particularly when coupled with improvements in schools,
transportation infrastructure, and the arts.
This perspective is compelling when placed in the context of the
proposal to designate The Badlands as Wilderness. If we accept that
protected public lands are an important economic asset, then S. 3088 is
an investment in Central Oregon's economic future. By protecting 30,000
acres of wilderness in Oregon's high desert, this legislation responds
to the demand from an overwhelming majority of Oregonians to ensure
that future generations can enjoy Oregon's natural heritage the same
way we have. It would also help safeguard Oregon's quality of life, and
give Oregon's economy a competitive edge over states that lack our
bounty of spectacular public lands.
Thank you for considering my comments. We look forward to working
with you to ensure that The Badlands Wilderness is designated this
year.
______
Trout Unlimited,
Arlington, VA, July 11, 2008.
Hon. Jon Tester,
204 Russell Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: TU Comments on S. 3085, the Cooperative Watershed Management Act of
2008
Dear Senator Tester: Trout Unlimited applauds your leadership in
offering a promising solution to resolving the growing water conflicts
across the country. The Cooperative Watershed Management Act encourages
local, engaged stewardship of watersheds through Department of the
Interior grant support, a process that works, in Trout Unlimited's
nearly 50 years of experience with hands-on watershed restoration when
we have a seat at the table. Stakeholder knowledge is the best resource
in formulating strategies for making the most of limited water
supplies, and a collaborative approach to restoring watershed health
built on local knowledge can provide some of the most enduring
conservation benefits.
Trout Unlimited (TU) is the nation's largest coldwater fisheries
conservation organization with 150,000 members nationwide. TU's mission
is to ``conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater
fisheries and their watersheds.'' Since TU was founded in 1959, on-the-
ground restoration of streams, watersheds, and fisheries has been our
hallmark. Throughout the country, our staff has worked with our
volunteers in their local chapters to implement restoration projects
within their home watersheds.
We believe this Act is intended to address ongoing and widespread
water quality issues that aren't adequately addressed by the provisions
in the Clean Water Act--like non-point source pollution, agricultural
run-off, sedimentation, and alterations of a natural flow regime. In
rural states like Montana, these sources of impairment account for
nearly 90 percent of all water quality-related problems, yet the Clean
Water Act has very limited authority and little effectiveness in
addressing these problems. This Act fills a void created by the
limitations of Federal and state water quality laws, and provides an
avenue for effectively addressing problems that have eluded a
regulatory approach.
We recognize that it takes stakeholder involvement to successfully
create and implement plans for using and preserving water resources. TU
has been successful in investing in collaborative, local watershed
projects. For example, our quarter-century involvement in a community-
based, watershed restoration effort in the Blackfoot River basin in
Montana has been acclaimed nationally as a model of successful aquatic
restoration and community building. Through collaborative partnerships
with local ranchers, our local ``Big Blackfoot'' TU chapter and TU
staff, the ``Blackfoot Challenge'' watershed group, and state and
Federal agency staff, the success of this project has drawn landowners
closer together as they manage their water and lands at the landscape-
scale. In the Blackfoot, over 400 individual restoration projects,
involving more than 200 landowners and leveraging over $7 million for
watershed restoration, has resulted in more clean, clear, cold water
supporting more fish and wildlife along side satisfied landowners.
In the Blackfoot, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), has been an important agency partner in the success of this
community restoration effort. Not only due to the long-term dedication
of agency field staff to the on-the-ground restoration projects through
FWS' Partners in Wildlife Program, but also because the agency has
expertise in planning, monitoring, and participating in species'
recovery and habitat restoration efforts. The FWS' effective
partnership with TU in the Blackfoot and in other watershed efforts
around the country, make FWS the logical agency to implement the
Cooperative Watershed Management Act.
Increasingly, our work at the watershed and landscape scale holds
the promise of achieving sustainable, lasting improvements to both fish
habitat and community dialog. The Cooperative Watershed Management Act
offers a sensible approach to addressing our water challenges--it is
based on a model that has been tested by on-the-ground efforts, and has
paid dividends where regulatory approaches have failed at a high cost.
For all of these reasons, we thank you for your leadership on this
important issue and look forward to working to ensure the bill's
passage.
Sincerely,
Steve Moyer,
V.P. of Government Affairs.
______
International Mountain Bicycling Association,
Boulder, CO, September 11, 2008.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: On behalf of the
International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and the millions of
mountain bicyclists in California, I wish to again comment on the
Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act, S. 3069 (and
H.R. 6156) that seek to establish new Wilderness areas in California's
eastern Sierra.
The International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) is a non-
profit educational association, whose mission is to create, enhance and
preserve great trail experiences for mountain bikers worldwide. Since
1988, IMBA has been bringing out the best in mountain biking by
encouraging low-impact riding, volunteer trailwork participation,
cooperation among different trail user groups, grassroots advocacy and
innovative trail management solutions. IMBA's worldwide network
includes 35,000 individual members, more than 700 bicycle clubs, more
than 150 corporate partners and about 400 bicycle retailers. IMBA's
members live in all 50 U.S. states, most Canadian provinces and about
30 other countries.
Mountain bikers are passionate about the outdoors. We believe in
managing public lands as a public trust and as priceless national
treasures. We share the concern with other trail users that the
pressures of growth and industry threaten the qualities that make our
favorite rides special. We want to see the forests and mountains where
we ride protected in their natural state, with clean air and clean
water.
IMBA applauds the movement to preserve wild areas in California's
and specifically the eastern Sierra. At a time when the state's
population is approaching 37 million people, it is vitally important to
preserve pristine backcountry for quality outdoor recreation. We are in
general agreement with much of the proposed Wilderness areas in H.R.
6156 and S. 3069, however there are some adjustments that we would like
to see that would allow for current and future recreation opportunities
for the mountain biking public.
Wilderness rules exclude human powered bicycle travel, therefore,
where possible, we request allowances for this type of low-impact
activity. Our areas of interest in the proposed Wilderness legislation
are the White Mountains, the Owens River Headwaters and the proposed
Pleasant View Wilderness.
In the case of the White Mountains, the recent boundary adjustment
(from the original map dated May 16, 2008) that makes the Mono-Inyo
county line the southern most border will eliminate existing riding
opportunities for mountain bikers. We request that the oval section
that includes Sage Hen Flat, Bucks Peak and Red Peak be excluded from
the proposed Wilderness boundary and to re-establish the southern
boundary line as portrayed in the map dated May 16, 2008.
The Owens Headwaters proposed Wilderness area has strong potential
for future mountain biking opportunity, and therefore we request that
the area be withdrawn from Wilderness consideration. This area needs to
be preserved in its pristine state from motorized intrusion under a
land management category that allows trail recreation, but does not
exclude human powered bicycle travel. The proposed parcel is adjacent
to the popular Mammoth Lakes resort community that draws millions of
visitors annually from the Los Angeles' basin. Current mountain biking
opportunity is mostly limited to the Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort, where
visitors are required to pay to mountain bike the private trails.
Visitors to the area routinely request a backcountry biking experience
away from the crowded ski slope. Bicycle enthusiasts and other local
trail advocates view the Owens parcel as the optimal location to build
sustainable, non-motorized trails to meet the growing demand for epic
backcountry experiences.
The proposed boundaries for the Pleasant View Wilderness will
eliminate current mountain biking trails. Therefore, we request that
corridors for these trails be allowed within the proposed Wilderness to
preserve existing mountain biking opportunities. Mountain cyclists
currently ride the trail from Devils Punchbowl to Buckhorn, as well as
the trail that runs from South Fork Campground to the highway near
Little Jimmy. These trails provide what mountain bicyclists call
``epic'' rides because of the remoteness, natural beauty, length of
ride, the opportunity for loop trail experience and the uniqueness of
riding from a desert like environment to beautiful mountain top vistas.
These trails, though remote, are in close proximity to the large
population center of the Los Angeles basin, and the communities of
Pasadena, Burbank, Mission Hills and San Fernando, that have a large
community of mountain bicyclists.
We welcome the opportunity to join with others to protect the
eastern Sierra, to ensure current and future generations can enjoy
high-quality outdoor experiences away from development, noise and
pollution. We look forward to continued discussion of how best to meet
the needs of mountain bikers and other trail users for this very
special region of California.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tom Ward,
California Policy Director.
______
Statement of Jon Bowerman, resident of Clarno, OR, on S. 3089
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding S. 3089. My name is Jon
Bowerman, and I am a lifetime resident of Oregon. I am writing to offer
my strong support of the Oregon Spring Basin Wilderness Act of 2008 (S.
3089). I have been a Wheeler County resident for over 35 years and live
and ranch immediately adjacent to the proposed Spring Basin Wilderness.
Spring Basin is located in Wheeler County, and in connection with
the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry's Hancock Field Station and
John Day Fossil Beds National Monument, provide a key attraction in the
County. It is a wonderful place for both local residents and visitors
to explore our public lands.
The Spring Basin Wilderness Act would protect a special Palouse
prairie landscape, which by some estimates currently exists in only 1
percent of its historic range. Blooming wildflowers and cacti
seasonally thrive in the protected basin, which is surrounded by
ancient basalt rock formations. Year-long access to horseback riding,
hiking, birding, and camping would showcase the wild beauty of this
region.
There are five landowners adjacent to the proposed Spring Basin
Wilderness, including the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Indian
Reservation who own and manage the Pine Creek Conservation Area. Each
of the landowners support the wilderness proposal and the associated
land exchanges that have been developed in conjunction with the BLM. By
consolidating land ownership, these proposed land exchanges will
improve public and private land management and secure public access to
Spring Basin and the John Day Wild and Scenic River.
Thank you Senator Wyden for introducing this important legislation
and I encourage the Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee and the
entire U.S. Senate to enact legislation as soon as possible to protect
this natural treasure. Our community and the American public will
benefit from this legislation for generations to come.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I
welcome any questions that you may have.
______
Statement of Kirk B. Richardson, Chief of Corporate Social
Responsibility for KEEN Footwear, Board Member of the Conservation
Alliance of the Outdoor Industry, and resident of Portland, OR, on S.
3088
Chairman Wyden and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
taking the time to consider my testimony in support of the Oregon
Badlands Wilderness Act of 2008. I am a native Oregonian, 55 years old,
who has lived, worked and recreated in this great state for most of my
life. I have worked as an executive in the athletic footwear industry
(NIKE 27 years and KEEN Footwear, 2.5 years) for nearly 30 years.
I am writing to express my support for wilderness designation for
the Badlands in central Oregon. As a key stakeholder in the outdoor
industry, KEEN is committed to protecting our country's last remaining
wild and scenic places--especially in our own backyard of the high
desert of Oregon. Outdoor recreation has always been a trademark of
``Brand Oregon'' and our unique way of life. Saving the Badlands will
preserve that way of life for generations to come and in the process
create economic opportunities for the Central Oregon region in the form
of eco-tourism, recreation, and outdoor education. The Badlands can and
should be a pillar both for the quality of life in Oregon, but also
protecting backyard access to the traditional outdoor recreation that
Central Oregonians have enjoyed for decades.
We often talk about Sustainability consisting of three main
pillars: People--Planet--Profits. This Wilderness Act for the Badlands
represents a balanced piece of legislation which supports all 3
pillars:
People--Outdoor Recreation is vital to the health and well-
being of Oregonians. Three-fourths of us participate annually
in Outdoor Recreation in Oregon, according to the Outdoor
Industry survey of 2006. We all know how fast Central Oregon is
growing, and access to Outdoor Recreation is a principal draw
to the region.
Planet--with 1000 year-old Juniper trees, Native American
pictographs, vital wildlife habitat and 30,000 acres of outdoor
recreational space, the preservation of the Badlands Wilderness
protects forever this incredible parcel of Federal land from
potentially destructive land-use choices owing to the speed of
development in Central Oregon this decade.
Profit--Outdoor Recreation is a $730 billion annual stream
of revenue in the US Economy which contributes $88 billion in
both Federal and state national tax revenues. In Oregon alone
this tax revue equates to $585 million per year as of 2006.
Salaries and Wages for Oregonians employed in this industry
surpassed $2.1 billion in 2006--and it is growing. Wild and
scenic outdoor destinations are critical to both companies like
KEEN and the Federal tax revenue picture.
Oregon has a unique opportunity to preserve a very special place
for future generations if we act now. As the population grows and
pressures expand on public lands, now is the time to act and protect,
preserve the Badlands for our future. I hope you will take these
comments to heart when you make plans for S. 3088, the Oregon Badlands
Wilderness Act of 2008. Thank you very much.
______
Statement of Gary L. Fowles, central Oregon resident and real estate
broker at The Hasson Company Realtors, on S. 3088
Senator Wyden and members of the Subcommittee,
I have been a real estate professional in central Oregon for 29
years. My career has allowed me to identify the features that make my
area an attractive place for population in-migration and growth.
Central Oregon is isolated from the larger population centers in Oregon
and does not enjoy the geographic location normally associated with
rapidly growing areas. Nevertheless, the tri-county area of Crook,
Jefferson, and Deschutes counties has enjoyed the benefits of explosive
growth, as more people choose to relocate here to enjoy all that
central Oregon has to offer.
It is clear to me that this growth is a direct result of the
quality of life that can be experienced here. I am convinced that
protecting the amenities that make central Oregon so special is
imperative if we are to continue our growth. The proposed Badlands
wilderness area adds an important element to the mix of amenities that
attract people to our area.
``The Potential Economic Impacts of Badlands Wilderness in Central
Oregon'' a study prepared by Bozeman, MT based Headwaters Economics
confirmed what I know intuitively, that wilderness designation for the
Badlands would bolster our economy and bring quality businesses and
employees to the tri-county area. Today's growth in central Oregon is
an example of a new economic model which is based upon ``migration
first, then jobs''.
Local governments, our state's Governor, various civic and business
groups and 69 percent of central Oregon's citizens believe that the
Badlands deserve wilderness designation. I thank Senator Wyden for
recognizing the will of the people of central Oregon by introducing
this legislation and ask the Subcommittee and the entire Senate to
enact this legislation.
______
Wilderness Workshop,
Carbondale, CO, July 18, 2008.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: We strongly endorse S. 3065, the Dominguez-
Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) and the Dominguez Canyon
Wilderness legislation, introduced by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO). We urge
swift Committee action on this bill.
S. 3065 will protect unique and beautiful lands that are important
to citizens of Western Colorado. The proposed Dominguez-Escalante NCA
includes a large diversity of geography, scenery, habitat, and
recreation opportunities. The Dominguez-Escalante NCA surrounds the
proposed Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. A wilderness designation will
afford permanent protection for the Dominguez Canyon, which was
recommended by the BLM for designation in 1991.
S. 3065 is a well-crafted bill, which takes fully into account
concerns and uses unique to the communities surrounding the proposed
designation. In addition, the bill includes an innovative Federal-state
water rights partnership allowing for natural flow of water through the
wilderness, while ensuring complete protection for existing water
rights and uses in and near the wilderness.
Finally, the bill is well supported by environmental and
conservation organizations statewide, the county commissioners from
Delta, Mesa and Montrose Counties, the Colorado River Water
Conservation Board, The State of Colorado, The International Mountain
Bicycling Association, local and regional newspapers, and over 100
local businesses.
We are grateful for Senator Salazar's leadership on behalf of
Dominguez Canyon and request your and the Subcommittee's full support
for S. 3065.
Sincerely,
Sloan Shoemaker,
Executive Director.
______
Colorado Mountain Club,
The Wilderness Society,
Denver, CO, July 16, 2008.
Re: S. 3065
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, for this
opportunity to express our strong support for the proposed Dominguez-
Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) and Dominguez Canyon
Wilderness, and for S. 3065, legislation to establish those important
protective designations.
We urge the committee to promptly recommend the legislation to the
full Congress for passage into law this year.
natural, wilderness, and cultural values
The proposed Dominguez-Escalante NCA includes a large diversity of
geography, scenery, habitat, and recreation opportunities, among them:
Cactus Park, found in the northern uplands portion of the
area, has become increasingly popular for motorized recreation.
Existing trails there and in the adjoining national forest will
be supplemented with select additions to handle the use without
damaging the landscape;
Cactus Park and other connecting portions also support
challenging and popular bicycling recreation;
Tributaries in the Dominguez-Escalante NCA and Dominguez
Canyon Wilderness flow into the Gunnison River, the major
waterway in the immediate region. The river is very popular for
boating and other forms of recreation. Improved management will
provide facilities for increasing use in order to protect the
scenic and fragile river corridor. Existing water rights in the
river will not be harmed by either the NCA or wilderness
designation;
The Gunnison Slopes tower over the west side of the Gunnison
River and afford long scenic views of the landscape;
Gunnison Bluffs on the east side of the river offers
extensive and popular recreational day-use;
The Old Spanish National Historic Trail (designated by
Congress in 2002), which passes through the proposed NCA along
the uplands east of the Gunnison River, will be supplemented
with interpretive facilities to improve visitor experiences;
The Escalante Canyon Area of Critical Environmental Concern,
a 1,900-acres reserve protecting sensitive plants, natural
seeps, hanging gardens and several globally unique plant
associations along Escalante Creek, the perennial stream that
transverses the southern portion of the proposed NCA;
The wide ranging elevations support a broad array of
ecosystems, including Desert Sonoran desert along the river,
pinyon juniper uplands, and Douglas fir-aspen forests on the
plateau above;
Dominguez & Escalante historic and cultural sites, which
will see increased protection, stabilization, and interpretive
information for visitors as part of the proposed NCA;
Dry Mesa, a sweeping upland cut by multiple canyons,
providing extensive, hiking, bicycling, motor-based day-use,
and successful hunting areas;
Livestock grazing will continue throughout the area,
especially in successful allotments on the uplands in the
western and southern portions of the NCA.
The proposed Dominguez Canyon Wilderness lies in the center
of the NCA.
The Dominguez Canyon Wilderness designation will afford deserved
and permanent protection for the diverse and unique values of the
wilderness study area established in 1980 and recommended by the BLM
for designation in 1991. Outstanding features of the area include:
Extensive artifacts, rock art, and dwelling sites--some
pieces 2,000 years old--from ancient civilizations that lived
and passed through here beginning perhaps 6,000 years ago;
Large and healthy desert big horn sheep herd well adapted to
the steep canyon walls and sparse water sources in the
wilderness;
Other wildlife, including eagles, native cutthroat trout,
bobcats, and songbirds.
Striking wildflowers that seasonally accent the scene;
Stark and scenic contrasts between sheer, dry, red canyon
walls and lush riparian areas along perennial Big and Little
Dominguez Creeks, which sport several striking waterfalls and
pools;
Broad delta canyon floors as the creeks approach confluence
with the Gunnison River, punctuated by cottonwood galleries and
native desert shrubs;
Cooler uplands of pinyon, juniper, and aspen that are part
of the headwaters for the creeks and that help diversify
seasonal habitation and safety zones for wildlife. The higher
lands afford scenic long views of the canyons below and
dominant Uncompahgre Plateau to the west;
Winding canyon bottoms provide over 30 miles of exploration
opportunities;
Outstanding opportunities for recreation, solitude, wildlife
protection, hunting, fishing, archaeological preservation,
fossil discoveries; and
Continued grazing in three primary allotments.
negotiations and collaboration
The crafting of this bill includes elements both standard and
unique to the area that were carefully and extensively negotiated with
a diverse amount of groups. The negotiations include:
Full and normal wilderness protections under the term of The
Wilderness Act of 1964;
Affirmation of certain special provisions from that Act,
assuring continued grazing, emergency access, and state
wildlife management authority;
A unique form of protection for natural flow of water
through the wilderness, while ensuring complete protection for
existing water rights and uses in and near the wilderness
through a Federal-state water rights partnership. This language
was crafted in detailed negotiation among The Wilderness
Society (in behalf of the Colorado Wilderness Network),
advisors to that network (including former Department of the
Interior Solicitor John Leshy, University of Colorado Law
School Dean David Getches, and Colorado water attorney Barney
White), the Colorado River Water Conservation District (in
behalf of several local water districts and other water rights
holders), the State of Colorado (Governor, Department of
Natural Resources, Water Conservation Board, and Stream & Lake
Protection Program), and county commissioners for three
affected counties, in consultation with BLM water rights
specialist;
Land exchange authorization for clarifying ownership and
establishing enforceable wilderness boundaries;
The revision and refinement of the wilderness and NCA
boundaries to eliminate conflicts with private property owners,
allow effective management by the BLM, and create a boundary
that was clear with for non-wilderness recreation users;
Affirmation of an existing life estate for a long-time
resident who transferred his inholding to the BLM several years
ago; and
Language on stock ponds that will allow for continued
grazing in a manner that helps disperse stock and protect the
wilderness area.
support
A wide and varying amount of organizations, government officials,
and businesses have come out in support of the designation of the
proposed NCA and wilderness area. The support includes:
Colorado Wilderness Network member organizations;
All three sets of affected county commissioners (Delta,
Mesa, Montrose);
Colorado River Water Conservation Board (for the water
language);
State of Colorado;
International Mountain Bicycling Association and local
bicycle clubs;
Local and regional newspapers;
Over 100 local businesses;
The proposal is accepted, if not heartily endorsed, by local
ranchers and grazers, and by other recreation organizations.
Overall, this legislation will provide protection to unique and
beautiful lands that are important to citizens of western Colorado.
Extensive citizen involvement throughout the process has allowed all
major concerns to be addressed. As a direct result, there is an
overwhelming amount of support for this bill.
Thank you again for allowing us to discuss why the bill would
protect a beautiful and unique area in Colorado. Please act promptly to
pass this important legislation into law this year.
Steve Smith,
Assistant Regional Director, The Wilderness Society.
Bryan Martin,
Assistant Director of Conservation, Colorado Mountain Club.
______
Statement of Kevin Day, Tribal Chairman, Tuolumne Me-Wuk Tribal
Council, Tuolumne, CA, on H.R. 3490
My name is Kevin Day and I am the Chairman of the Tuolumne Band of
Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria. Thank you for holding this
hearing on H.R. 3490. We are especially appreciative of your
willingness to entertain this measure at this time because, as I will
discuss below, one of the things that this bill does is transfer land
for a local tribal fire station and we are currently living through a
very frightening wildfire situation in Northern California.
I'd like to start by giving you some background; the Tuolumne Band
of Me-Wuk Indians is a small federally recognized California Tribe with
an approximate membership of around 400 people. Our modern tribal
government was organized under the Indian Reorganization Act in January
1936. As you can see on the California State map (attached as Exhibit
A)* our small reservation is located in the western foothills of the
Sierra Nevada, approximately 1 hour north of Yosemite National Park and
2 hours east of Sacramento. We operate a successful casino under a
compact with the State of California, a new and very successful health
clinic that serve both, native and non-native customers, a native plant
nursery business, and numerous governmental service programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exhibits A-E have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we are proud of our success, our limited tribal land base,
and its rocky terrain have presented us with some serious problems.
Among these, are the fact that: (1) only 150 of our 400 members are
actually able to reside on our tribal lands and (2) our ability to
construct things like an adequate tribal fire station are limited at
best. Virtually all of our existing trust land is currently being used
for administrative offices or housing, or it is not well suited for new
construction. In fact, a study of our unused lands has found that their
rocky and hilly terrain is best suited for the grazing of livestock.
Lack of available housing for tribal members is one of most serious
problems. Today, we have approximately 64 on-reservation homes, which
are fully occupied. Many of these homes are seriously overcrowded, and
we are constantly finding ourselves addressing health and safety issues
within them. Many of our off-reservation members wish to return to the
reservation, but our lack of housing sites makes those moves
impossible. To make matters worse, many of our children, who were
raised on the reservation, are being forced to leave when they reach
adulthood in order to find their first home.
Our lack of adequate fire protection is also a serious concern.
Currently, we are only able to house one fire truck and our local
Federal fire substation was severely cut back due to a lack of Federal
funding. We have been thinking about this problem every day this month,
as the Northern California wildfires continue to burn. We were already
in contact with the Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest Service
about our proposed solution to this problem before this round of fires
broke out. If we can obtain this land and develop a new greatly
expanded fire house, we have agreed to try to work out an arrangement
with the U.S. Forest Service to house their emergency equipment in that
expanded facility. Locating this facility on the lands we are seeking
to acquire could easily make the difference between protecting and
losing lives and property if a wildlife fire were to break out on any
of the Federal lands which surround our reservation. I direct your
attention to the attached letters from the Department of Interior and
the U.S. Forest Service expressing their desire to work out a fire
station arrangement with the Tribe if those lands can be acquired.
H.R. 3490 is a very straightforward piece of legislation. It
transfers three small parcels of surplus land from the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to be held in
trust for the benefit of our Tribe. It also extends the boundaries of
our reservation to encompass those new BLM lands as well as the other
lands our Band has acquired in recent years. This reservation boundary
extension is very important to us because many Federal programs,
including some Indian housing programs, draw a clear distinction
between on and off-reservation assistance. While the Secretary of
Interior has the legal authority to extend the boundaries of most
existing reservations, he lacks that authority in our case because many
Federal programs, including some Indian housing programs, draw a clear
distinction between on and off-reservation assistance. While the
Secretary of Interior has the legal authority to extend the boundaries
of most existing reservations, he lacks that authority in our case
because our reservation, like many in California, was established by
Executive Order. Thus, we need your help to accomplish this simple
goal.
If you will turn now to the map which is attached to my testimony
and labeled as Exhibit B, I would like to describe the parcels we are
requesting to transfer. This map has parcels that are color coded in
yellow, blue and green. The light and dark Yellow parcels are lands
which are currently held in trust for the Tuolumne Band. The star in
the light yellow parcel is our tribal headquarters and the star in the
dark yellow parcel shows you where our tribal casino is located. This
casino is operated pursuant to an existing compact with the State of
California and in accordance with an existing Memorandum of
Understanding with Tuolumne County. The Blue parcels are the BLM lands
we are seeking to acquire, and the green parcels are lands which the
Tribe currently owns in fee simple. Those lands are pending tribal
trust acquisition under the normal fee-to-trust process.
All of the blue BLM parcels have been listed as ``potentially
available for disposal'' on recent BLM land reports. The first parcel,
identified as # 1, is located less than \1/2\ mile from our existing
tribal trust lands. That parcel contains a historic Tuolumne Me-Wuk
cemetery. Because of the site's cultural and religious significance,
the BLM has, for all intended purposes, simply allowed the Tribe's use
and maintenance of the parcel for many years. This cemetery is still in
use today. In fact, one of our Tribal Members was buried there less
than 3 years ago. We have always sought to acquire this parcel in trust
because of its deep cultural significance to our people, but our
efforts have become even more desperate since the BLM has listed it as
``potentially available for disposal.'' Simply put, we cannot lose
control of the graves of our people and of our ancestors.
The BLM parcel identified as # 2 is a small site of around 15-16
acres. As you can see on that map, this site is contiguous to lands
already held in trust and in fee simple by the Band This is a vacant
parcel which was originally set aside by BLM, in accordance with the
Federal Recreation and Public Purpose Act, for the establishment of an
inter-tribal health facility and a tribal cultural center. Due to
unforeseen circumstances, the intertribal health facility was never
developed and the Tribe is no longer apart of the intertribal health
consortium. We have located our health facility on other tribal fee
land; however, we have notified BLM that we are still pursuing the use
of this land for our cultural facility. Our goal is to use this parcel
for the tribal fire station discussed above, a tribal cultural center
and perhaps some additional tribal government buildings, none of which
are related to gaming in any way.
The third BLM parcel, identified as # 3, is a slightly larger site
of around 50 acres. Like parcel #2, it is vacant and it is also
contiguous to our existing tribal lands holdings. This parcel has been
totally unused by the BLM for many years and our goal is to put it to
use for tribal housing and tribal infrastructure buildings. Like I
noted above, we cannot bring our people home to their own tribal lands
unless we can provide them with a place to live.
The parcels identified in green are lands which the Tribe owns in
fee simple. All of these parcels are currently awaiting a final
transfer into trust. The Tribe submitted a standard 151 fee-to-trust
application for these parcels and received the Secretary's approval of
that application on January 12, 2007. Unfortunately, that transfer of
title has been held up by a frivolous appeal filed by a contiguous
landowner who is seeking leverage to force the Tribe to buy their
property at an inflated price. The BIA and the Tribe are both fighting
that appeal vigorously and we have every reason to believe that the
Interior Board of Indian Appeals will simply dismiss the case and order
the land taken into trust as soon as it gets the time to read the case
files. Anything that you can do to help speed that process along would
be greatly appreciated.
With the exception of a small home-site of around 3 acres, which is
surrounded by BLM Parcel #2, and which we are in friendly negotiations
to acquire from its current non-Indian owner, every parcel of land
encompassed within the new reservation boundaries drawn by H.R. 3290 is
owned by the Tuolumne Band, either in trust or in fee.
We are located in a Public Law 83-280 state, so the re-designation
of our reservation boundaries will not alter the criminal jurisdiction
over these parcels. Additionally, the fee properties at issue were
already zoned residential when we acquired the title, and we have
maintained that zoning under our tribal laws and started to prepare our
housing development plans. All of those fee parcels have already
undergone full NEPA review for housing and tribal infrastructure
development.
Finally, the Tribe and Tuolumne County have developed and executed
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which sets forth protocols for all
interaction between the County and the Tribe. That Agreement, which was
executed on January 16, 2001, has allowed us to maintain a good faith
working relationship with our local governments. The MOU sets forth a
binding payment in lieu of taxes agreement with the County, which
provides the County with tribal payments to offset the tax losses they
will incur when the fee parcels I have been describing are taken into
trust. Thus, our future trust acquisition will have nothing but a
positive impact on the County's tax base. We therefore believe that all
of our local jurisdictional issues have already been resolved. In fact,
Tuolumne County has signed written statements of support for the
transfer of the BLM lands to the Tribe and for the Tribe's fee to trust
application of the parcels codes in green. Those letters are attached
to this testimony as Exhibits C. Finally, we have been working with our
local Tuolumne Fire Protection District and they have also supported
our fee to trust application by the letter found at Exhibit D.
In closing, I would like to make it very clear that this bill has
nothing to do with gaming. Under Section 3 (a) the bill makes it clear
that the BLM lands we are seeking to transfer shall be ``held in trust
by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe for
nongamingpurposes''. Additionally, as I just noted, the fee parcels
being added to the reservation are already zoned residential and our
housing and infrastructure development plans are already underway.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that I have provided you with all of the
information that you require to report this bill to the House floor in
the immediate future. I will be happy to answer any questions that you
may have or provide you with any additional information that you need.
Again, thank you for taking the time to entertain this very important
bill for the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians.